Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Northern Ireland’s Place in the UK

Robin Millar: What steps the Government is taking to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the UK.

Rob Butler: What steps the Government is taking to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the UK.

Andrea Leadsom: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the Union.

Antony Higginbotham: What steps the Government is taking to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the UK.

Bob Blackman: What steps the Government is taking to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the UK.

Brandon Lewis: In the year of Northern Ireland’s centenary, the Government have delivered the largest funding settlement to Northern Ireland since devolution, record investment in public services and vaccines at a rate possible only because of our great NHS. We are boosting local economies through city and growth deals and providing, along with the Northern Ireland Executive, a UK contribution of more than £730 million to the Peace Plus programme to contribute to a more prosperous and stable Northern Ireland. This is a Government working for Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland is stronger for being part of the UK, just as much as our United Kingdom is stronger for having Northern Ireland as an integral part of it.

Robin Millar: Internal trade is one of the key strengths and benefits of being part of our United Kingdom. Irish Government statistics, however, suggest a 60% increase in north-south trade with the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the diversion of trade is clear evidence of the need to invoke article 16?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point, highlighting one of the reasons why, when we published our Command Paper in the summer, we said that, as of then, the conditions to trigger article 16 had been met. We are very clear that we do not rule that out. If we have to use article 16, we will, but we are in negotiations with the European Union. The ideal solution for us would be to come to an agreement with the EU, but that has to be one that delivers on the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

Rob Butler: A great strength of being an integral part of the UK is being able to benefit from the excellent trade deals being agreed around the world now that we have left the EU. Clearly, different regions and nations will have different needs from those deals, so what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard in trade negotiations as a means of strengthening its place in the Union?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: as a Government of the whole United Kingdom, we are committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s businesses and consumers have access to and benefit from new trade deals. The Department for International Trade now has an office in Belfast and, just last month, I hosted, with the Secretary of State for International Trade, the Board of Trade in Derry/Londonderry. I look forward to doing more on that. We work with businesses in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that we can deliver and involve them in these opportunities.

Andrea Leadsom: Does my right hon. Friend agree that every UK citizen and resident should have access to a similar level of healthcare? Will he guarantee that nothing in the negotiations on the Northern Ireland protocol will put at risk access to medicines and covid vaccines for residents and citizens of Northern Ireland?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of our UK-wide NHS that everyone in our country can expect to receive quality health services, regardless of where they live. Currently, because of unnecessary regulatory and trade barriers in the UK internal market, we have seen difficulty in safeguarding medicine supplies. Unlike the EU, which some in this House will remember attempted to trigger article 16 earlier this year, with the intent of putting a hard border for vaccines on the island of Ireland between Northern Ireland and Ireland, this Government would never do anything that jeopardises access to medicines or covid vaccines for the residents of Northern Ireland.

Antony Higginbotham: Northern Ireland shares many of the same traits as our great county of Lancashire, Mr Speaker, including world-class expertise in aerospace and cyber-security. Does the Secretary of State agree that we can and should do much more to join up Lancashire and Northern Ireland, so that we can do even more together?

Brandon Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend. This relates to a range of areas, including the strategic transport network, which will bring people and businesses across the UK closer together and which is helping us to build back better. It is also important to look at the business  and general communication links that mean that all parts of the UK and businesses in it can work together to develop the economy for the benefit of people across the United Kingdom, including in his constituency.

Bob Blackman: A prosperous Northern Ireland is a force for democracy in Northern Ireland, so what role does my right hon. Friend see the levelling-up fund having in strengthening the economy in Northern Ireland and therefore strengthening its democracy?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: prosperity is an important part of peace and is what has led to the peace that we have seen over the past 23 years. Northern Ireland is benefiting from being part of the fifth largest economy in the world. In addition, it is receiving its largest funding settlement since devolution. We are investing to ensure that we level up in Northern Ireland, with £60 million this year from the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund and the community ownership fund, as well as £400 million from the new deal for Northern Ireland and more than £600 million in city and growth deal investment to drive growth. We will continue to build back better and level up in Northern Ireland through the upcoming UK shared prosperity fund, as well as the global Britain investment fund.

Colum Eastwood: The Downing Street declaration states,
“on the behalf of the British Government, that they have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland.”
That is a direct quote from the declaration—signed, of course, by a Conservative Prime Minister. Does this British Government still agree with that principle, or are they going to abandon the consent principle that means the people of Ireland, north and south, will decide the constitutional future of our island, not the British Government or anybody else?

Brandon Lewis: We are absolutely clear, as we have been consistently, about our dedication to and determination to continue to deliver on the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, which includes the principle of consent. This Government understand the difference between consent and impartiality and make no apologies, just as I make no apologies for being a Conservative and a unionist who believes in the Union and that the Union is stronger for Northern Ireland’s being in it. That does not detract from the reality that the future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland.

Kirsten Oswald: Much to the Prime Minister’s presumed disappointment, his proposed bridge between Northern Ireland and Scotland has been rejected as “impossible to justify” by his own advisers, as it would cost £300 billion, 22 times more than the Prime Minister’s estimates. Does the Secretary of State agree that that flight of fancy is a perfect example of why Westminster should leave devolved matters such as transport to devolved nations? They know what is needed, and it is not impossible projects such as that, based on ideology.

Brandon Lewis: I feel sorry for the hon. Lady; she should think bigger and better and be more optimistic about the future of the United Kingdom. It is absolutely right that we look at the things we can do to improve  our country. If we do not look at those things, we will never achieve anything exciting that can drive our economy. It is absolutely right that we look at how we ensure that the connectivity of the whole UK is working for the benefit of the UK. Scotland is able to continue as a strong economy as part of the United Kingdom because it benefits from its links with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Stephen Farry: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to secure the Union is to ensure that Northern Ireland works, that we build a shared and integrated society and that all traditions in Northern Ireland are equally respected?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, absolutely. An important part of that is looking at how we deliver on areas of the Good Friday agreement that have not yet been delivered on, including things such as integrated education. I think it is still shameful that only 7% of the population benefit from integrated education. There is always more to do, and we can do that working together for the benefit of the whole community of Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: There are many in Northern Ireland, myself included, who believe that the protocol represents the greatest threat to the Union at this time. Recalling the commitment made by the Government in the New Decade, New Approach agreement to protect and strengthen Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, what urgent steps do the Government intend to take to deliver on that commitment and to safeguard the political institutions in Northern Ireland?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I want to be clear: the Northern Ireland protocol is not working for the people of Northern Ireland. Societal and economic difficulties have been faced across both unionist and nationalist communities and by the business community, who are very clear about that. There is also a sense that identity is being eroded and east-west links weakened. That is compounded by the very real issue of trade diversion, which has already been mentioned this morning. The European Union and the Irish Government need to recognise that the lack of movement on the Northern Ireland protocol is leading to a loss of confidence in the institutions established under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Restoring the balance between east-west and north-south is vital. That is why we continue to press through negotiations for a new balance to the protocol, but we are clear that all options remain on the table. We will do what we need to do to correct the situation for the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place within it. This Government will not allow the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, of which we are co-guarantors, to be put at risk.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Another commitment made in New Decade, New Approach was the establishment of the Castlereagh Foundation to promote and to undertake proper research into the benefits of the Union to Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State update the House on progress made in establishing the Castlereagh Foundation?

Brandon Lewis: In July, I appointed an advisory committee to provide advice on appropriate delivery partners to establish the Castlereagh Foundation, the legal form it should take, the role of the foundation and the cost to establish it. I thank the committee for its work; it is putting forward a proposal that I expect to have on my desk to look at and consider, to be able to make some decisions on the appropriate next steps, in the imminent future.

Consultations on Addressing Legacy of Northern Ireland's Past: Victims Groups

Gregory Campbell: What recent representations he has received from victims groups on consultations on addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland's past.

Brandon Lewis: Since publishing the Command Paper, the Government have engaged with a range of stakeholders, including victims groups, who we have always said must be central to discussions on legacy. Victims groups have provided evidence at sessions that the Government have convened with Northern Ireland parties and in partnership with the Irish Government, in addition to the Government’s own bilateral engagement. The process has been hugely valuable and we are all grateful to those who shared their views on this important and sensitive issue.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State has said that the victims groups are central to all he is doing in this regard, but now that there appears to be total unanimity in opposition to the Government’s amnesty proposals among the people most directly affected in Northern Ireland, how will he reconcile their opinion with his desire to proceed in the face of such opposition?

Brandon Lewis: As I have said before, we are working through the feedback that we received over the summer and autumn following the engagement that we had with a range of parties with an interest in this matter: victims groups, political parties and other stakeholder groups in civic society. We need to be honest about what is achievable, and about the reality that the current system is not working for people. It is not providing the information and it is not getting to the truth. Our focus is on ensuring that we are able to deliver a package that can get to the truth for families who have waited for far too long.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Simon Hoare: My right hon. Friend is right to say that the current position is not working, and I think we should all congratulate him on trying to grapple once again with an issue that has been left lying there for too long. However, if his proposals are to secure any traction, they will have to be compliant with article 2, and we will have to see a fully fleshed out plan for truth and reconciliation. Can he give me assurances on both points?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the key points that we made in the Command Paper—we will be setting out a lot of the work we are doing on this—was about ensuring that people can see that investigations will continue. There will be an information recovery body that will be able to  get to the truth and will have access to information in a way that we have not seen before. We are determined to deliver on that, and we are determined to ensure that what we deliver is article 2 compliant.

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box.

Peter Kyle: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Command Paper was published back in July, and since that time there have been two pauses, or perhaps more. That implies quite directly that the Secretary of State’s thinking is evolving. Can he tell the House, with as much precision as possible: what is the difference between his thinking as it currently stands and his thinking in the paper that was published in July?

Brandon Lewis: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. I look forward not just to sparring with him at the Dispatch Box, but to working with him for the benefit of Northern Ireland in the period ahead. I am sure we will be able to ensure that, on a range of matters, we are delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, along with his team.
We have not had pauses as such. We said when we published the Command Paper that we wanted to engage with parties, and we agreed at the summer British-Irish intergovernmental conference with the Irish Government to do that in partnership. That work continued over the summer and autumn and just last week we had a meeting of the British-Irish intergovernmental conference which is developing that work. This is a very complicated, complex area, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). We want to bring forward this package of work and legislate for it to ensure that we deliver for people in Northern Ireland—for victims who have waited too long for information. So there have not been pauses; the work continued throughout the summer and autumn.

Peter Kyle: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind comments. I am also grateful for the messages and exchanges that we have had in the run-up to today.
In the spirit of constructive relations, let me share with the Secretary of State a bit of advice that comes from my experience. My last job was as the shadow Victims Minister, and when I was drafting the Victims of Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, Etc (Rights, Entitlements and Related Matters) Bill, I learnt that offering support only works when the victims are in the driving seat. According to the proposals that are currently on the table, the victims are not even in the car. Rather than delaying—the Secretary of State did promise it in the autumn and he did promise it before Christmas, and it has not emerged—can he give a clear assurance, on behalf of the victims, that he has gone back to the drawing board and will only return with proposals once victims are front and centre and in the driving seat? That is what they deserve, and that is what Governments should deliver for them.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is new to this, but we must hear from some other Front Benchers, and I am not going to make it if we do not have shorter questions and answers.

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and I will be very clear about this. We want to ensure that we are delivering for the people and the whole of Northern Ireland, for the victims, and obviously for all those who served in Northern Ireland as well. This is a complex area, and our programme and the work we are seeking to deliver will deliver for victims. Victims are consistently saying that they want to get to the truth of what happened. The current system is not delivering that. Our Command Paper sets out a plan for a way to do that. We need to be honest about the current system’s failures and look at a new way forward. The Command Paper sets that out. We will look into the feedback we had over the summer and autumn, and we will do that very soon.

Johnny Mercer: On the weekend, I received another call from the media with a briefing from the Northern Ireland Office saying that legislation and a statement would be coming out this week, and so on. This is the seventh deadline to produce this legislation—self-set by the Secretary of State—that he has missed. Does he have any intention at all of honouring his word?

Brandon Lewis: I do not recognise what my hon. Friend just outlined. I said that I would set out to Parliament our intended direction of travel and what we wanted to do before the summer recess, and we did that with the Command Paper. We did have an ambition to legislate this autumn, and I was determined to do that, but we have to ensure that we are delivering and focusing on the work that we have seen over the summer and autumn in the ongoing conversations with victims groups and veterans groups, the Irish Government and the parties in Northern Ireland. This is a complex area, and we have to make sure that when we deliver legislation on this, it is legislation that works for the people of Northern Ireland and for those who served in Northern Ireland as well.

Mark Francois: No one believes you any more.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Northern Ireland Protocol Negotiations

Martyn Day: What progress the Government have made on negotiating revisions to the Northern Ireland protocol.

Meg Hillier: What progress the Government have made on negotiations on the Northern Ireland protocol.

Julian Smith: What assessment he has made of the progress of the negotiations with the EU on the Northern Ireland protocol.

Brandon Lewis: The status quo cannot continue. Nearly six months ago we presented a Command Paper outlining how we thought we could resolve the serious issues within the Northern Ireland protocol. The EU brought forward its own proposals, but these do not have the  support of businesses or society and do not remove the need for unnecessary checks on goods that will remain in Northern Ireland and the UK internal market. We want a negotiated solution and we are engaging constructively but the gap between us is still large. We will do what we need to do to deliver for Northern Ireland.

Martyn Day: Members of this House have said on the record that the Prime Minister personally told them that the Northern Ireland protocol was being agreed with the specific intention to renege on it in the future, so how can any future trade or negotiating partner trust the UK when it is clearly acting in bad faith?

Brandon Lewis: The UK Government have been very clear and transparent about our intentions all the way through, as we were when we launched the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill last year, as we were when we took action back in March, and as we were when we published the Command Paper. The current situation with the Northern Ireland protocol is not working for the United Kingdom internal market and it is not working for anybody or any business in Northern Ireland. That is not sustainable and it needs to be corrected.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State has said today that the Northern Ireland protocol is not working for the people of Northern Ireland, but it was his Government who negotiated the protocol and voted for the exit from the EU. Is he not embarrassed to stand here as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a Government who have effectively thrown Northern Ireland under the bus in the name of Brexit?

Brandon Lewis: The objectives the Northern Ireland protocol include ensuring that the everyday lives of people and their communities are not disrupted, that the UK internal market is respected and that all three strands of the Good Friday agreement are respected. The EU’s implementation of the protocol is breaching those issues and we will not tolerate that. It is abhorrent to be in a situation in which members of the Jewish community in Northern Ireland cannot practise their religion under the EU’s requirements. That should not be tolerated by anybody in this House.

Julian Smith: I welcome the Government’s dialling down of the rhetoric on the protocol, but may I urge them to speed things up? This issue and these negotiations are affecting our international relationships in steel and other matters, and the very fragile ecology in Northern Ireland. May I also urge the Secretary of State to assist my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on his need for a negotiated settlement on the Irish sea checks and regulations?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend is right: we need to see this resolved quickly, but that obviously requires the European Union to recognise the very real issues on the ground in Northern Ireland and the fact that we need to see movement from the EU to get to a resolution that can work for businesses in Great Britain supplying Northern Ireland, and for Northern Ireland’s citizens.

Lindsay Hoyle: I now welcome the new shadow Minister, Tonia Antoniazzi.

Tonia Antoniazzi: It is almost 12 months since the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed and concluded yet, despite all the talk and all the bluster from Lord Frost, the UK Government have still not reached an agreement on the transporting of medicines to Northern Ireland. This is a matter of life or death. Will the Secretary of State please give a concrete guarantee to the House now that an agreement on medicines will be reached before Christmas?

Brandon Lewis: That is very much at the heart of the discussions that Lord Frost is continuing to have with the EU. The hon. Lady highlights a clear problem. The EU needs to come to the table with proposals to resolve these issues so that people can have confidence in having access to medicines, rather than having that access prohibited by the way in which the EU wants to implement the protocol.

Mark Francois: The Secretary of State keeps threatening to invoke article 16, but he never quite gets round to doing it, does he? There is a pattern of behaviour here: the Secretary of State talks a great game but he never plays one. Where is your Bill, Brandon?

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend is right that we have not yet triggered article 16. As we said, the conditions have been met, but article 16 is not the solution in and of itself; it is the start of a process. It is right that we strain every sinew to reach an agreement with the EU, because that is what gives certainty for businesses and citizens in Northern Ireland. It is a reality that if we are not able to secure an agreement with the EU, and if the EU is not able to move in a way that delivers for Northern Ireland, we do not take anything off the table.

Claire Hanna: The Secretary of State will be aware of recent Office for National Statistics data indicating that Northern Ireland is faring the best of all UK regions due to the protection and dual market access of the protocol. He will also be aware of the BBC “Spotlight” investigation into very murky goings on at Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, showing that loyalist threats to the protocol were confected for and by political actors. Will he acknowledge that there has been a year-long campaign of reality distortion to mask the fact that the protocol, which has majority and growing support in Northern Ireland, is required by the people of Northern Ireland?

Brandon Lewis: We have always been clear that we want to ensure the protocol works for people in Northern Ireland, and at the moment it does not. In my engagement with business representative groups across Northern Ireland last week, they were very clear that the status quo does not work for businesses in Northern Ireland and the EU’s offer does not deliver a solution.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government’s legal representatives are now telling the courts that the Northern Ireland protocol represents a temporary suspension of parts of the Act of Union. When will this temporary suspension come to an end?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on an open  court case, but we are determined to ensure we resolve the issues for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland and for the UK internal market.

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission:  Core Functions

Liz Twist: If he will make an assessment of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s ability to carry out its core functions.

Conor Burns: We value the important work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in championing human rights in Northern Ireland. We are committed to ensuring the commission has the resources and the ability to carry out its functions, and we remain in close contact with the chief executive and their staff.

Liz Twist: One of the many risks of activating article 16 is the chance that human rights safeguards secured under article 2 and relied on by organisations such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will fall by the wayside. Will the Minister confirm that any negotiations involving the protocol will not lead to the unravelling of article 2 commitments?

Conor Burns: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that the provisions of article 2 are unconnected to any triggering of article 16. We are absolutely committed to seeing no diminution of human rights in Northern Ireland.

Exports to Northern Ireland: Businesses in Great Britain

Scott Benton: What steps his Department is taking to support businesses in Great Britain which export to Northern Ireland.

Conor Burns: International trade is vital to boosting prosperity for this country, and trade within the United Kingdom is essential for our sense of connectivity and belonging, which is a priority for this Government.

Scott Benton: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the steps he is taking to support trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We should know better. When a Member is asking a question, you should not be walking in front of him. That is just not fair.

Scott Benton: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Despite these measures, east-west trade remains disrupted because of the EU’s application of elements within the protocol. I wholeheartedly support the Minister’s efforts to remedy the situation, but if those efforts are unsuccessful, will he confirm that all measures, including invoking article 16, remain on the table?

Conor Burns: The Government have been absolutely clear that we want to find a sustainable and durable solution to the problems created by the protocol. Under the strong leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Lord Frost’s unrivalled grasp of the protocol, we are determined to reach that solution.

Richard Thomson: Would not the best way by far to support east-west trade, and to overcome the entirely self-inflicted wounds that this Government have created with the protocol, be simply to realign with the single market and the customs union?

Conor Burns: That is so 2016, is it not? SNP Members are still not reconciled to the democratic decision that the British people took to control their own destiny and leave the European Union. We are determined to find a sustainable and durable solution to the protocol, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Lord Frost and the Secretary of State are all clear that if that cannot be achieved, we will take whatever actions are necessary to secure the interests of the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Irish Times carries a piece that states that the Republic of Ireland now has the highest debt in all of Europe and 20% higher costs of living than Northern Ireland, and it now requires a multibillion-pound bailout from Europe to deal with the consequences of Brexit. Is it not the case that, by contrast, Northern Ireland is part of the fifth largest economy in the world, and that not only is it part of a strong and growing economy, but it requires the friction that exists between businesses in Northern Ireland and GB to be removed? Invoking article 16 will allow that friction to be removed.

Conor Burns: We do not need any international comparisons to sell the benefits of Northern Ireland being an integral part of our United Kingdom. It is good for jobs, it is good for health and it is good for prosperity. We are definitely better together.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions—[Interruption.] Mr MacNeil, I do not need any help from you. This is an important message to those people who are watching. Before I come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Nicola Richards: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 December.

Boris Johnson: May I begin by saying that I understand and share the anger up and down the country at seeing No. 10 staff seeming to make light of lockdown measures? I can understand how infuriating it must be to think that the people who have been setting the rules have not been following the rules, because I was also furious to see that clip. I apologise unreservedly for the offence that it has caused up and down the country, and I apologise for the impression that it gives.
I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured. But I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to establish all the facts and to report back as soon as possible. It goes without saying that if those rules were broken, there will be disciplinary action for all those involved.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Nicola Richards: Bins left uncollected, council tenants being forced to live in damp and cold homes, £22 million lost on the Providence Place land deal and a £10 million overspend on special educational needs and disability transport contracts that were almost awarded to Labour councillors’ friends—today, our council’s external auditors released a damning report that surprises none of us. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that 47 years of Labour control in Sandwell has done nothing but level down my constituency of West Bromwich East, and that my constituents in West Bromwich, Friar Park and Great Barr deserve better?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, because the instinct of Labour councillors up and down this country is, yet again, to level down rather than to level up. I encourage her constituents to install a Labour council there—[Interruption]—a Conservative council there as soon as possible.

Keir Starmer: I heard what the Prime Minister said at the beginning of this session, but frankly it raises more questions than answers. Last week, I asked the Prime Minister: was there
“a Christmas party…in Downing Street for dozens of people on 18 December?”—[Official Report, 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 909.]
The Prime Minister and the Government spent the week telling the British public that there was no party and that all guidance was followed completely. Millions of people now think the Prime Minister was taking them for fools and that they were lied to; they are right, aren’t they?

Boris Johnson: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman probably missed what I said at the beginning, but I apologise for the impression that has been given that staff in Downing Street take this less than seriously. I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Jess Phillips: I apologise, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Right, well let us just have a little less. It is important.

Boris Johnson: I have asked the Cabinet Secretary to investigate exactly what happened, and I repeat that there will be consequences for those involved if the rules were broken.

Keir Starmer: An internal investigation into what happened? The situation is as clear as day. I thought last week was bad enough; surely the Prime Minister is not now going to start pretending that the first he knew about this was last night—surely.
We have all watched the video of the Prime Minister’s staff, including his personal spokesperson. They knew there was a party, they knew it was against the rules, they knew they could not admit it and they thought it was funny. It is obvious what happened—Ant and Dec are ahead of the Prime Minister on this. The Prime Minister has been caught red-handed; why does he not end the investigation right now by just admitting it?

Boris Johnson: Because I have been repeatedly assured that no rules were broken. I understand public anxiety about this and I understand public indignation, but there is a risk of doing a grave injustice to people who were, frankly, obeying the rules. That is why the Cabinet Secretary will be conducting an investigation and that is why there will be the requisite disciplinary action if necessary.

Keir Starmer: This pretence that further information has come to light—give me a break! The Prime Minister is still taking the public for fools.
On the day of the Downing Street party, Trisha Greenhalgh’s mum phoned her; she was “breathless and feverish”—[Interruption.] You might want to listen. Trisha followed the rules and did not visit her mum. Listening? Four days later, on the day the Prime Minister’s staff laughed about covering up the party, Trisha’s mum was admitted to hospital. Trisha followed the rules and did not visit. Trisha’s mum spent Christmas day in hospital; Trisha followed the rules and did not visit. Two days later, Trisha’s mum died. What Trisha wants to know is: why did the Prime Minister expect her to accept that the rules allowed a Downing Street party but did not allow her to visit her dying mother?

Boris Johnson: The first thing to say is that, in common with everybody in this House, I extend my sympathies to Trisha and her family. I understand the pain of everybody who has suffered throughout this pandemic.
I know the implication that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to draw: that the case that we are now investigating should somehow undermine public confidence in the measures that we are taking. I think that is the point he is trying to make, but I say to him that I think it is a great mistake to try to play politics with this issue, and I think that is what he is doing. I do not think the public do want to see confidence in the measures undermined. We are taking—[Interruption.] I think they can see the difference. We are taking the steps necessary to protect the public, above all by rolling out the vaccinations. Rather than focusing on the events of a year ago, that is what we are focusing on and that is what I think the public will understand.

Keir Starmer: But it is not just the events of a year ago, is it? We are facing a new variant. We may well be in plan B this afternoon. Even the Prime Minister must understand the damage that he has done to his credibility in enforcing the rules now and in the future. Trisha made an enormous personal sacrifice to do the right  thing—to follow the rules and help defeat the virus. That is what she was asked to do. Most people were just like Trisha last Christmas. No one was dreaming of a Zoom Christmas, turkey dinners for one, and gifts exchanged at service stations, but the virus was out of control. Four hundred and eighty nine people died of covid on the day of the Downing Street party. The British people put the health of others above themselves and followed the rules. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his Downing Street could not do the same?

Boris Johnson: I have said what I have said about the events on 18 December. They will be properly investigated, Mr Speaker, and I will place a copy of the Cabinet Secretary’s report in the Library of the House of Commons. What people should not do is lose focus on what we are trying to do now. Of course we will deal with what may or may not have taken place on 18 December last year, but what we need to focus on today is what we are doing to roll out the vaccinations across the country and what we are doing to protect the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is indeed right that we now have, in the omicron variant, a variant that is spreading much faster than any that we have seen before, and, with great respect to him, that is what we need to focus on. That is why I ask everybody to go to get their booster jab as soon as they are called to come forward.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister apparently wants us to focus on what is happening today. There were no Government spokespersons on the media this morning—I see that the Health Secretary has made it to the Chamber. That is the point: this virus is not defeated. We will face other tests where the British people may be asked by their leaders to make further sacrifices for the greater good. Her Majesty the Queen sat alone when she marked the passing of the man whom she had been married to for 73 years. Leadership, sacrifice—that is what gives leaders the moral authority to lead. Does the Prime Minister think that he has the moral authority to lead and to ask the British people to stick to the rules?

Boris Johnson: Not only that, but the Labour party, and the Labour leader in particular, have played politics throughout this pandemic—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I must hear what the Prime Minister is saying, because I need to know what is being said.

Boris Johnson: Yes, Mr Speaker. Throughout this pandemic, the Leader of the Opposition in particular has done nothing but play politics to try to muddy the waters, to confuse the public and to cause needless confusion about the guidance. The public have not been so confused and they have not been fooled. They have got on with implementing the guidance, and, in particular, they have got on with showing great commitment to the health of this country by going forward to get vaccinated—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Streeting, we had this the week before. I will not have this every week. If you want to be on the Front Bench, behave like you are meant to be there.

Boris Johnson: At every stage, the Labour leadership and the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), have tried to muddy the waters and play politics, but the people of this country have not been fooled. In particular, they have come forward to get vaccinated faster than any other country in Europe. We have now done 20 million boosters; that is the single best thing that we can do. I encourage everybody to keep going and get their booster jab.

Keir Starmer: That is so desperate, and even the Prime Minister’s own side can see it. Last week, the Prime Minister told us there was no party. Now he thinks that there is something to investigate. The Justice Secretary thinks that the police do not investigate crimes from a year ago. Well, I ran the Crown Prosecution Service and I can tell him that that is total nonsense. At Westminster magistrates court right now, the CPS is prosecuting more than a dozen breaches of covid restrictions last December—including those, Prime Minister, who hosted parties. The CPS is doing its job, enforcing the law set in Downing Street. Will the Prime Minister support the police and the CPS by handing over everything that the Government know about parties in Downing Street to the Metropolitan police?

Boris Johnson: Of course we will do that, and we will get on with the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continually wants to play politics with this issue. We want to get on with our job of protecting this country during the pandemic, delivering the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, fighting the drugs gangs when the Labour party wants to decriminalise class A drugs, and backing our Nationality and Borders Bill. The Opposition have an opportunity to focus on that tonight; why not back our borders Bill and have life sentences for people traffickers? That is what the Leader of the Opposition should be doing and that is what I urge him to do, rather than playing politics.

Fiona Bruce: As we celebrate the advent of Christmas, I thank the Prime Minister for his support for Christians, and those of other faiths and beliefs, who face persecution across the world. We here stand with them. The Government have talked about the gift of resettlement for Afghans who are members of religious minorities—those who are at risk of persecution, targeted for their beliefs. Will this gift of resettlement be available by the end of Christmas?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for everything that she does, particularly as special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. As she rightly says, we have an Afghan citizens resettlement scheme coming. We have already taken 15,000, but it is important that we get that scheme right. Further details, including the eligibility criteria, will be announced by the Home Office in due course.

Ian Blackford: We are standing on the cliff edge of yet another challenging moment in this pandemic. Omicron cases are rising at a rapid rate, and over the coming weeks tough decisions will again have to be made to save lives and protect our NHS. Trust in leadership is a matter of life and death. Downing Street wilfully broke the rules and mocked the   sacrifices that we have all made, shattering the public’s trust. The Prime Minister is responsible for losing the trust of the people. He can no longer lead on the most pressing issue facing these islands. The Prime Minister has a duty: the only right and moral choice left to him is his resignation. When can we expect it?

Boris Johnson: The SNP and the Labour party are going to continue to play politics. I am going to get on with the job.

Ian Blackford: No dignity from a Prime Minister who quite simply just does not get it. People across these islands have followed the rules, even when it meant missing friends and family, missing births, missing funerals, missing the chance to be beside a loved one in their dying moments. People have sacrificed, at times to the point of breaking, while the UK Government have laughed in our faces.
It is clear that the Prime Minister has lost the support of the public and now even his own Benches. This is not a grin-and-bear-it moment; this is a moment of moral reckoning. Every Member on the Conservative Benches must now decide: is this the man to lead these islands when lives are at stake? It is clear that this Prime Minister intends desperately to cling on to power, and I have nothing left to say to a man whose answers we simply cannot trust, so Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will hear this question whether the Front Bench like it or not. I am expecting better behaviour. The public out there are questioning this Parliament—do not add to that question.

Ian Blackford: They are questioning this Parliament and questioning this Prime Minister that we cannot trust.
It is clear that the Prime Minister is desperately clinging on to power, and I have got nothing left to say to a man who we simply cannot trust. It is time for Members in this House to act. If he does not resign, he must be removed.

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his vote of confidence, but I can tell him that I am going to get on with the job. I believe that that is the right thing to do. I think it is very, very sad that when the public need to hear clarity from their officials and from politicians, the Opposition parties are trying to muddy the waters about events, or non-events, of a year ago. That is what they are doing today.

Island Deal for Isle of Wight

Bob Seely: What recent progress he has made on bringing forward proposals for an Island deal for the Isle of Wight; and if he will make a statement.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is an excellent champion for the Isle of Wight. I know there is ongoing discussion between the Isle of Wight and the Department for Levelling Up about the unique circumstances of the Island, including the discussions about the possibility of a county deal.

Bob Seely: I thank the Prime Minister for his response. Will the Government accept the findings of the independent study that they themselves commissioned this summer into a long-term fair funding settlement for the Island, the final calculations of which are due imminently? In doing so, will he help me to right a wrong that has now been ongoing for the Island—for my constituents—for some six decades?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. He will understand that it is not easy to break down the costs that apply to the service delivery on the Island, but I know the Department is carefully considering the details of the study he mentions, and I am sure the relevant Minister will keep him updated.

Engagements

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: In view of the harm caused to political stability in Northern Ireland and to our economy by the Northern Ireland protocol, noting the lack of progress in removing the Irish Sea border, and recognising that Unionist consent for the protocol is not forthcoming, what urgent steps do the Prime Minister and his Government intend to take to honour his commitment to restore Northern Ireland’s place fully within the UK internal market and to safeguard the political institutions in Northern Ireland?

Boris Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have discussed this extensively, and he knows that we share a view that the protocol is not working in the way that it needs to in order to guarantee the Belfast-Good Friday agreement. I do not believe things need to be that way. I think it could be worked differently. We want our EU friends and partners to understand that and we will continue to work with them to get them to see things in the way that people on both sides of the Irish sea see them. In the meantime, we do not remove the possibility of invoking article 16 to protect trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Bob Blackman: This week thousands of my Hindu constituents and millions worldwide start the celebrations of the birth centenary of His Holiness Pramukh Swami Maharaj. His life was given over to people of all castes, races and religions. He was of course the inspiration behind the world-renowned Neasden temple and hundreds of other temples. Will my right hon. Friend join me in that celebration and in giving good wishes to all Hindus across the world?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, and I thank the Hindu community for their amazing contribution to this country. I was delighted to visit the Neasden temple last month to hear about all they have done during the pandemic. I wish everybody in that community and all those celebrating all the very best.

Kirsten Oswald: The chaos of this Government is a distraction from  the serious decisions they should be taking. We all know that the Chinese Government deny basic human  rights to China’s minority religious communities. The repression of the predominantly Muslim Uyghur population in Xinjiang has been condemned as an act   of genocide. In the face of these abuses, President Biden has decided that US diplomats will boycott the Beijing Olympics. New Zealand and Australia have followed suit. It is international Human Rights Day on Friday, so will the Prime Minister raise his eyes from his chaos and commit the UK to joining the diplomatic boycott, or does his desperation for trade deals trump human rights?

Boris Johnson: No, because we make all those points regularly to the Chinese. Indeed, I did to President Xi when I talked to him recently. As I have said before, we do not support sporting boycotts, but there are certainly no plans for Ministers to attend the winter Olympics.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Many of my constituents in Sleaford and North Hykeham are struggling to access an NHS dentist, leading to pain and suffering, in particular for children, military families and veterans. My right hon. Friend has invested a record amount of money in the NHS. Does he agree that some of this money must be used to level up dental care provision? Does he share my surprise that there is no dental school in the east midlands, and will he back my campaign for a dental school in Lincolnshire?

Boris Johnson: Health Education England is working extensively in Lincolnshire to improve the recruitment and retention of dentists. I understand that it agrees with her about the uneven distribution of dental schools throughout the country, and I am sure that as it considers its next steps, it will have heard her appeal.

Mary Foy: Storm Arwen left thousands of people in Bearpark, Ludworth, Sherburn and Waterhouses without heating or electricity, yet it took five days for a ministerial statement to be made and a week to send in the Army. My constituents were not just left without power; they were left without a Government who care. Can the Prime Minister look me in the eye and honestly say that he did everything he could, as soon as he could, to help the people of Durham?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I can. I can tell the hon. Lady that I was in contact with representatives of the local authorities, of the Army, of Northern Powergrid and others to see what more we could do to assist them in restoring power. I sympathise very much with the families who lost power for an unconscionably long period, and the House will have heard the explanation of the various electricity companies about why that is so. We must learn the lessons from Storms Arwen and Barra and ensure nothing like that happens again.

David Warburton: I know we all agree that our vaccination programme has been a tremendous success. Vaccinations are the frontline of defence against all variants of covid, and the booster jab is a vital component of that, but in rural areas like mine, our booster centres are often few and very far between, and two thirds of housebound people—those perhaps most vulnerable, most susceptible and most in need—have not yet received their booster. Can I ask my right hon. Friend what steps the Government are taking to ensure that more centres are available,  particularly in rural areas? Will he ask the Health Secretary to meet me with some urgency to ensure that my constituents can get their boosters and stay protected this winter?

Boris Johnson: Among the heroes of the vaccine roll-out are pharmacists up and down the country, as my hon. Friend rightly says. We have 1,500 community pharmacies vaccinating people near where they live. I know that the NHS is considering the need to support more pop-up clinics where there is a need. I am happy to arrange a meeting with him and the vaccines Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), to discuss this further.

Catherine West: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November?

Boris Johnson: No, but I am sure that whatever happened, the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times.

Luke Evans: We know that booster vaccines are essential in our fight against covid. Speaking to clinical colleagues, one of the biggest hindrances is the 15 minutes that people have to wait post-Pfizer. If we could reduce that or take that away, it could release thousands of hours of clinicians’ time. Will the Prime Minister ask the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to look to see whether it is safe to do so, particularly for those receiving their third Pfizer booster?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I can tell him that we are in the process of reviewing the 15-minute waiting requirement for both booster doses. We continue to be guided by the JCVI and the MHRA.

Cat Smith: 

Boris Johnson: We are putting record funding into the NHS, including NHS dentistry. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with the cases that she has mentioned, I would be happy to take them up with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.

Graham Stuart: 

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. It is absolutely true that, through our careers strategy, we have so far invested £2 million to support career-related learning in primary schools. As Members of the House  will know, we get the most extraordinary questions from primary school children and they are often very ambitious for their futures.

Jack Dromey: 

Boris Johnson: Yes, it does. That is why it is absolutely vital that we should get to the bottom of whatever may or may not have taken place on 18 December last year, but we need to focus on what is happening this year. I urge the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and everybody else to get their booster jab and to look after themselves.

Maria Miller: At the moment, indecent exposure or flashing is illegal offline but not online. I welcome the Prime Minister’s support for that to change when he spoke to the Liaison Committee in November. Will he support outlawing cyber-flashing and other forms of sexual image abuse online when the forthcoming Online Safety Bill comes to the House?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the phenomenon of cyber-flashing. It is one of the issues being addressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the online harms Bill.

John McNally: 

Boris Johnson: We are absolutely committed to delivering 4,000 zero-emission buses and we are also committed to supporting UK bus manufacturing.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister has already been asked about the winter Olympics, but having listened to his answer, I have to say that, sadly, it was not strong enough. I support the request that the UK Government now act against the dictatorial brutal Chinese regime that is persecuting everybody from Christians to Tibetans and terrorising the Uyghurs. Will they follow the suit of the Americans, the Australians and even the Lithuanians and please—I beg of him—give a lead to human rights and make a diplomatic boycott of the winter Olympic games?

Boris Johnson: It is clear from what I said earlier on that the Government have no hesitation in raising these issues with China, as I did with President Xi the last time I talked to him. There will be effectively a diplomatic boycott of the winter Olympics in Beijing. No Ministers are expected to attend, and no officials,  but what I can tell the House is that I do not think that sporting boycotts are sensible, and that remains the policy of the Government.

Douglas Chapman: The Prime Minister will be aware of the recent National Audit Office report on bounce back loans and the eye-watering levels of fraud and criminality uncovered. In the interests of the taxpayer, will the Prime Minister initiate a great British bounce back fraud squad to recover this public money and prosecute where appropriate, even if the crime was committed more than a year ago?

Boris Johnson: Of course, we will take action against anybody who has defrauded any of the covid loans, bounce back loans or otherwise.

William Wragg: There are media reports of a Cabinet meeting and press conference this afternoon to initiate covid winter plan B without reference to this House. Covid passes will not increase uptake of the vaccine but will create a segregated society. Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that very few will be convinced by this diversionary tactic?

Boris Johnson: No decisions will be taken without consulting the Cabinet.

Rosena Allin-Khan: This country is angry, and understandably so. Last Christmas, while we were in lockdown, millions of people were unable to be with their families; thousands of people waved through their care home windows at the loved ones wishing  them a merry Christmas from the side of the road; people died without that last touch from their daughters, their sons, their wives; working in intensive care, I wept behind my mask as three children talking to their dying mother on an iPad begged her to wake up; and countless children are now growing up without parents—while parties were held at No. 10. This is disgraceful. This is an insult to everyone who followed the rules. It is an insult to everyone who was not allowed to say their final goodbye. This happened on the Prime Minister’s watch, so my question is very simple: how does the Prime Minister sleep at night?

Boris Johnson: I want first of all to repeat what I said earlier on about what happened a year ago, or what may not have happened. I share and understand the hon. Member’s grief and her feelings. I thank her for her service in the NHS. I know how much this country has been through and I know how difficult it has been. If you ask me how I sleep at night, the answer is that of course I take full responsibility and personal responsibility for everything that this Government have done, but I must say to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House that the way forward for this country now is to focus on the position we are in and, above all, to get our vaccinations as fast as we possibly can. We are in a much better position this year than we were last year, and that is thanks to the vaccination roll-out. I urge every Member of this House to join that campaign and that great British vaccination effort.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are lots of points of order, but I will take the parliamentary leader of the SNP first.

Points of Order

Ian Blackford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have informed the Prime Minister that I would be making a point of order, but I was informed by those on the Government Front Bench that he had to go. My goodness, those of us on the opposite side of the House absolutely agree that he has to go—he has to go as Prime Minister. People throughout these islands have been watching this debate today, and people feel revulsion at the stories that have emerged, in particular the video last night. What is worse is that there are now authoritative reports of not just one, not just two, but three different Downing Street parties during lockdown last Christmas, including one in the Prime Minister’s flat. What do we on this side of the House have to do to make sure that the Prime Minister takes responsibility for his breach of trust and the breach of covid regulations and that he does the right thing on behalf of all the people of these islands and resigns, and resigns now?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. [Interruption.] I think I make that decision. [Interruption.] No, I know you are not, and it is not to me, obviously.
This is a very tense moment for the House and I want to try to calm it down. We cannot continue a debate after it has already gone on, but what I would say is that I am not aware of any media attention and it is not for me to rule on something that happens in Downing Street. I also say to the right hon. Member that he has got his point on the record and we can leave it at that.

Alberto Costa: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Committee on Standards has issued its fourth report of this Session, making a number of proposals and recommendations, some of which are open for consultation. As one of the longer-standing MP members of the Committee, I have been approached by some colleagues in the House, cross party, seeking guidance. It has become apparent to me that many colleagues are unaware of the existing practices and processes of the Committee and the code, let alone understand the proposed changes.
The Committee is keen to ensure full consultation and its Chair and team are doing a good job in encouraging Members to take part. With that in mind, I have checked “Erskine May”, spoken to senior colleagues and asked whether it would be appropriate for me to offer a meeting or meetings so that colleagues across the House could take part in the consultation on the proposed recommendations, with a view to sharing my views, listening to colleagues and strongly encouraging them to participate and express their views. The consultation runs until 20 January. I understand that it is entirely in order and permitted, so can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that you would encourage colleagues across the House to take part in this important consultation process?

Lindsay Hoyle: I would encourage all Members to take part in the consultation process that has been launched, but that is certainly not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman has made a point of clarification for the House.

Wes Streeting: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you been notified by the Government of their intention to make a statement today from the Department of Health and Social Care, because if media reports are to be believed there will be a Cabinet meeting this afternoon followed by a Downing Street press conference to announce the introduction of new restrictions? Mr Speaker, you have made it clear in the past that statements should be heard here first. I want to say that, despite what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions to the Leader of the Opposition, this party and we on the Labour Benches have always put public health before party politics, which is why we have voted with the Government time and again—do not abuse that trust in the way that the public trust has been abused. We will always put public health first, but we expect that announcement to be made here.

Lindsay Hoyle: First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. I can confirm that I have had no request from the Government to make a statement. Of course, I am open to that, as soon as the Government come forward and say that they wish to make a statement. I say to the Government, as I have repeatedly said—and I will continue to repeat it—that it must be made here so that Back Benchers, whether Government or Opposition, can hear it in this Chamber. This Chamber is where statements are made. Otherwise it goes against the ministerial code. I do not want to fall out with the Prime Minister, but this is not a good way of getting Christmas cards sent between us, because I find it very offensive. There is plenty of time for the Government to come forward and say that they wish to make a statement here. What I do not want is statements to be made outside. I want respect for this House. I expect the Government to make sure that they respect their own Back Benchers, because I do even if he does not. So this is a chance for all to make sure that this House hears it first. I hope that, with my voice, they will be able to hear that in Downing Street, because I will make sure that they do hear it. So please let us not take this House for granted, and I stand firmly behind all Members of this House in saying that it must be heard here first.

Florence Eshalomi: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 3 November, I raised the tragic case of my constituent’s mother who sadly died by suicide, and the Prime Minister agreed to meet me. Mr Speaker, how best can I get that meeting? Essentially, the Prime Minister is now refusing to meet me.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will write to the Prime Minister to remind him that he promised to have a meeting with you. I will pass on those remarks, and I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard them. When people make statements that they will meet, they should honour that. All Members of this House count. All Members matter.

Alistair Carmichael: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is further to the point of order raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). Successive Ministers have promised that vaccine passports will not be introduced without the prior approval of this House, yet it is reported today  that they are going to do exactly that. What can you do, Mr Speaker, to protect the position of this House and to ensure that Ministers keep the promises they have made to it?

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not want to continue debate on a point we have already had an answer to. What I would say is that I expect—and I know—that your voice will be heard, and it is certainly on the record.

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarity on a point of procedure. Earlier, the Leader of the Opposition invoked Her Majesty the Queen in the political exchange, and I thought there was guidance—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. No, I am not even going to enter into that. If you look at yesterday’s proceedings, you will find that someone from the other side did the same. It was in passing and not part of the debate.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the points made about the need for the Government to come to the House if they have anything to announce today, would you exceptionally permit the use of the urgent question procedure if a statement were not offered, so that we could put down an urgent question this afternoon for answer today?

Lindsay Hoyle: I would be very willing to look, if it is at all feasible, to see whether we could use a UQ, if there is a way around the rules, because I would be more than willing to accept one if the Government were not willing to come forward with a statement. I totally agree that a statement would be beneficial. As I say, I am sure Downing Street would not let the Members of this House down.

Catherine West: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your advice has been very valuable today; I wonder whether you could extend it to this. I feel that there were some inconsistencies in the reply to my Question 6 in Prime Minister’s questions. Could you please advise me of next steps in managing the matter?

Lindsay Hoyle: Unfortunately, I am not responsible for the answers—it is as simple as that—and I certainly do not want to be.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from that, with reports swirling in the last few minutes or half hour, would you accommodate and encourage a statement from the Prime Minister on just how many parties they have had in Government buildings, and when, during the covid restrictions?

Lindsay Hoyle: We are not going to extend the debate, and you have been here long enough to know that I am not going to be tempted by that.
If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule Bill.

Community Wealth Fund

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Paul Howell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer monies from the Dormant Assets Scheme into a new national endowment called the Community Wealth Fund, to be invested for the purposes of improving the local environments and quality of life of deprived communities, including through building social capital and social infrastructure; and for connected purposes.
As the first Conservative MP for Sedgefield since 1931, I, like so many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches, was elected with a mandate to level up every community across the UK. In our first two years in office, we have worked tirelessly to level up opportunity. The Prime Minister announced the towns fund; the Chancellor set out a landmark £4 billion levelling-up fund for investment in the infrastructure of everyday life; there is the UK shared prosperity fund, to support communities after Brexit; and now we have a Department focused on delivering our levelling-up mission, so that every community across the country can benefit from the policies of this Government.
Most of the proposals announced so far will help improve economic fortunes across the UK, as we build back better from covid and meet the challenges of net zero. I know how important investment in physical infrastructure is—it can be a significant injection of belief in an area—but as I said earlier this week on Second Reading of the Dormant Assets Bill, levelling up needs to be more than that. It is time to tackle the next frontier of levelling up, and to rebuild the essential social infrastructure that our communities rely on, because both places and people are important. Research and evidence strongly suggest that places need investment in their social fabric as well as in their physical infrastructure. People need support and resources to nurture and develop the type of relationships that underpin the health and wellbeing of our communities and of the country as a whole.
We have seen the benefits of strong social connections over the past year, as local residents stepped up during the pandemic to protect their communities from the virus, forming mutual aid groups to ensure that vulnerable residents were looked after. As we move beyond covid and look to the future and to other challenges, we need to build on that community spirit. The Bill seeks to do just that—to help restore local pride in place, through investment in people, so that they develop the confidence and capacity to build the relationships needed to help them take action in their community.
If our levelling-up ambitions are to reach every part of the country, there must be levelling up in those places where the social fabric is most frayed. We need a “least first” approach to levelling up, with investment targeted first at those areas that have the least. It is for that reason that I am bringing forward this Bill in my role  as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for  “left behind” neighbourhoods, which is supported by 76 Members from across both Houses.
The 225 left-behind neighbourhoods that we represent and advocate for face severe economic deprivation and are significantly lacking in the social infrastructure that is so important to our way of life, but which many of us  sometimes take for granted. That infrastructure includes: essential community places and local spaces where people can meet; the local activity and engagement with civic life that supports a sense of local ownership, and fosters belonging and civic pride; and physical and digital connectivity, which is vital in connecting residents to amenities, services and opportunities. These neighbourhoods are spread across the UK, and include Trimdon, Thornley and Ferryhill in my constituency. As research done for the APPG has found, such neighbourhoods face significantly worse outcomes than all other areas, including those that are equally economically deprived but that at least benefit from a foundation of social infrastructure.
The work of our APPG over the past 18 months has made it clear that these neighbourhoods require investment in the politics of belonging. We need to make these neighbourhoods better places in which to live and grow up; to invest in local talent and opportunities; and to provide these neighbourhoods with the support and resources that they need to flourish. Communities thrive when they enjoy a vibrant local civic life, whether it is built around a shared local history, heritage and experiences, or important local assets and institutions, such as a pub, library, football club or community centre.
These cultural and heritage assets help to create bonds of trust, and to cement the relationships and strengthen the ties that bind us to each other and to the place we call home. They underpin our unwritten social covenant and generate trust between the people who live in a place—a trust that can be relied on in times of difficulty. These are things that local residents understand. Recent polling from Survation found that two thirds of residents in left-behind neighbourhoods felt that their neighbourhood was missing out on community facilities; over half said that their area had fewer resources, such as parks, leisure and sports facilities, and places to meet. As importantly, almost 60% of residents said that they wanted more of a say in how future funding in their area was spent.
When it comes to levelling up an area, the community is best placed to know what needs to be done. We should not only listen to local people, but trust them to take the lead. We need to level up by devolving down, and give communities the confidence and capacity to take action on the issues that matter most to them, as well as the support and resources that they need to improve local outcomes. That is the purpose of the community wealth fund that I propose in the Bill. As we heard in the Chamber on Monday, the expanded dormant assets scheme provides almost £900 million, which could initially be used for this fund, so there would be no drain on the public purse.
I welcome the aim of the Government’s Dormant Assets Bill, which is to broaden the scope of dormant assets. The money will be committed to good causes. My Bill will ensure that that is a reality; it will set up an endowment that supports those places that are most left behind in designing their own future, achieving greater control over their destiny, and building long-term prosperity.
If the community wealth fund is to transform left-behind neighbourhoods in a way that previous schemes have not, the money must be invested in such a way as to build the social capital of residents while delivering visible and tangible benefits to their neighbourhoods.  Research by the University of Cambridge looking at the past 40 years of place-based regeneration schemes found that the key determinants for driving lasting change included local decision making, targeting funding at the neighbourhood level, and ensuring long-term funding. Recent research for Onward reflects those findings; it found that while the involvement of communities is essential, many communities require up-front investment in order to participate fully.
The community wealth fund would build on the learning from previous regeneration programmes and support residents in taking the lead on making decisions about how its money is spent in order to achieve lasting change. That would turbo-charge community confidence and capacity, increase the stock of local social capital, and boost civic pride and local quality of life. Over the long term, we expect this investment to pay dividends by increasing residents’ ability to develop longer-term strategies for delivering change and tapping into the opportunities on offer across their wider region.
The decision on how and where to commit funds must be driven by the significance of the local social impact, and not some arbitrary calculation of the financial return on investment. We must try to reinforce this opportunity by making the approach as relational and human as possible, and remove whatever bureaucracy we can. I welcome the fact that the Government confirmed on Second Reading that they are not opposed to considering a community wealth fund, and that the idea is actively being considered in the levelling-up White Paper discussions. I also welcome the warm words of my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who acknowledged that the core features of a community wealth fund—community decision making at a hyper-local level and investment in social infrastructure—have an important role to play in improving access to opportunities for everyone, particularly those in more deprived communities.
I fully support the objectives of the proposed consultation, and indeed hope that the result will be a community wealth fund, but I urge the Government to listen to the many organisations that have backed the call for a community wealth fund, and to colleagues from across the political parties. At the very least, I hope that the Government will ensure that the proposal for a community wealth fund is included in the consultation. I sound a note of caution: we need to initiate investment in social capital as soon as possible. For much of what we will consult on, we already know what we will find, so I encourage only minimal consultation, to allow for action as early as possible.
A community wealth fund would make a significant contribution to delivering the Government’s levelling-up objectives in many of our most left-behind communities. It is what is needed if we are to realise our ambitions of a new social covenant: a national endowment vesting greater control directly in the hands of local communities. My Bill, supported by my APPG, will set in motion the mechanisms by which we can build trust and achieve genuine and transformational change in left-behind neighbourhoods. It will do this by giving communities the opportunity to take the steps and identify the measures that they need to thrive. I would of course welcome the opportunity to talk to Ministers, together with members of the APPG, about the design and implementation  of a community wealth fund. I commend this Bill to  the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Paul Howell, Jo Gideon, Jim Shannon, Dr Kieran Mullan, Dame Diana Johnson, Alexander Stafford, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck and Rosie Cooper present the Bill.
Paul Howell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 215).

Nationality and Borders Bill

[2nd Allocated Day]

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 17 November 2021, on Channel crossings, migration and asylum-seeking routes through the EU, HC 194; Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 1) – Nationality, HC 764 / HL 90; Ninth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Nationality and Borders Bill (Part 3) – Immigration offences and enforcement, HC 885 / HL 112; Letter from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Tom Pursglove MP relating to Part 2 (Asylum) and Part 5 (Modern Slavery) of the Nationality and Borders Bill, HC 588, dated 17 November; Letter from Tom Pursglove MP to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to Part 2 (Asylum) and Part 5 (Modern Slavery) of the Nationality and Borders Bill, HC 588, dated 25 November.]
Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 3 - Offence of human trafficking for sexual exploitation

‘(1) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another person (“V”) to the United Kingdom with a view to V being sexually exploited in the United Kingdom.
(2) It is irrelevant whether V consents to the travel (whether V is an adult or a child).
(3) A person may in particular arrange or facilitate V‘s travel to the United Kingdom by recruiting V, transporting or transferring V, harbouring or receiving V, or transferring or exchanging control over V.
(4) A person arranges or facilitates V‘s travel to the United Kingdom with a view to V being sexually exploited in the United Kingdom only if—
(a) the person intends to sexually exploit V in the United Kingdom during or after the travel, or
(b) the person knows or ought to know that another person is likely to sexually exploit V in the United Kingdom during or after the travel.
(5) “Travel” means—
(a) arriving in, or entering, the United Kingdom,
(b) departing from any country outside the United Kingdom in circumstances where the person arranging or facilitating V’s travel intends that the destination will be the United Kingdom.
(6) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of—
(a) where the arranging or facilitating takes place, or
(b) where the travel takes place.
(7) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if—
(a) any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the United Kingdom, or
(b) the travel consists of arrival in or entry into, departure from, or travel within, the United Kingdom.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both.’—(Dame Diana Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.

Diana R. Johnson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Exemption for child victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information notice on a person in respect of an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(2) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either of the positive reasonable grounds decisions related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(3) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where the positive reasonable grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(4) Sections 64(3) and 64(6) of this Act do not apply in cases where the positive conclusive grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.’
This new clause would exempt victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking from many of the provisions in Part 5 of the Bill if they were under 18 when they became a victim.
New clause 30—Victim Navigators—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make provisions for each police force in England and Wales to have one or more Independent Victim Navigators to liaise between the relevant police force and potential victims of slavery or human trafficking and to assist in the procurement of specialist advice for both the police force and the potential victim.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’
This new clause seeks to introduce provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victim of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.
New clause 39—Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection—
‘(1) This section applies to the construction and application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.
(2) The competent authority may determine that it is not bound to observe the minimum recovery period under section 60(2) of this Act in respect of a person in relation to whom a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made, if the authority is satisfied that it is prevented from doing so—
(a) as a result of an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order; or
(b) the person is claiming to be a victim of modern slavery improperly.
(3) Any determination made under subsection (2) must only be made—
(a) in exceptional circumstances;
(b) where necessary and proportionate to the threat posed; and
(c) following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
(4) A determination made under subsection (2) must not be made where it would breach—
(a) a person’s Human Rights Convention rights;
(b) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention; or
(c) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
(5) For the purposes of a determination under subsection 2(b), victim status is being claimed improperly if the person knowingly and dishonestly makes a false statement without good reason, and intends by making the false statement to make a gain for themselves.
(6) A good reason for making a false statement includes, but is not limited to, circumstances where—
(a) the false statement is attributable to the person being or having been a victim of modern slavery; or
(b) where any means of trafficking were used to compel the person into making a false statement.
(7) This section does not apply where the person is under 18.
(8) Nothing in this section shall affect the application of section 60(3) of this Act.’
This new clause is an alternative to clause 62. It ensures that the power currently provided for in clause 62 is exercised in line with the UK’s obligations under Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention. This amendment also protects child victims of modern slavery from disqualification from protection.
New clause 43—Civil legal aid under section 9 of LASPO: add-on services in relation to the national referral mechanism—
‘(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (civil legal services qualifying for legal aid) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 32A (Victims of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour) insert—
“Pre-National Referral Mechanism advice
32B (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to referral into the national referral mechanism and connected immigration advice.
General exclusions
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Part 2 of this Schedule.
Specific exclusions
(4) The civil legal services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include—
(a) advocacy, or
(b) attendance at an interview conducted by the competent authority under the national referral mechanism for the purposes of a reasonable grounds decision or a conclusive grounds decision.
(5) In regulation 5(1) of the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/480) (exceptions from requirement to make a determination in respect of an individual’s financial resources), after paragraph (l), insert—
“(m) civil legal services described in paragraph 32B of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act (Civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to referral into the national referral mechanism).”’
New clause 47—Support and leave to remain for confirmed victims of slavery or human trafficking—
‘This section applies if a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person.
(1) This subsection applies if the person has received support under section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015—
(a) assistance and support must be provided for at least 12 months beginning on the day on which support provided under section 50A ends,
(b) where assistance and support is provided to a person under this subsection the Secretary of State must consider whether it is necessary for the victim’s physical, psychological and social recovery or to prevent  re-trafficking to provide assistance and support after the end of the period in subsection (2)(a) for as long as they think appropriate,
(c) a decision whether to provide assistance and support in accordance with subsection (2)(b) must be made at least four weeks before the end of the assistance and support provided under subsection (2)(a),
(d) a reference in this subsection to assistance and support has the same meaning as in section 50A(7) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
(2) This subsection applies if the person is not a British citizen—
(a) the Secretary of State must give the person leave to remain in the United Kingdom if subsection (2) or (4) or (5) applies,
(b) leave to remain provided under this subsection shall be provided from the day on which the positive conclusive grounds decision is communicated to a person for either—
(i) the amount of time support and assistance will be provided under either subsection (2) or one of the measures listed in subsection (4), or
(ii) at least 12 months if the person meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).
(3) This subsection applies if the person receives support and assistance under one of the following—
(a) section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (c. 2 (N.I.)),
(b) section 9(3)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (asp 12), or
(c) regulation 3(4)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Support for Victims) Regulations 2018 (S.S.I 2018/90).
(4) This subsection applies if the person meets one or more of the following criteria—
(a) leave is necessary due to the person’s circumstances, including but not restricted to—
(i) the needs of that person for safety and protection from harm including protection from re-trafficking,
(ii) the needs of that person for medical and psychological treatment,
(b) the person is participating as a witness in criminal proceedings,
(c) the person is bringing any civil proceedings including pursuing compensation.
(5) Where the person is receiving assistance from a support worker the recommendations of the support worker must be considered in assessing that person’s circumstances under subsection (5)(a).
(6) The Secretary of State must provide for persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section to have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.
(7) The Secretary of State must allow a grant of leave to remain under subsection (3) to be extended subject to the requirements of subsection (9).
(8) In determining whether to extend a grant of leave to remain under subsection (8), and the period of time for which such extended leave should be provided, the person’s individual circumstances must be considered, and whether that person—
(a) is receiving on-going support and assistance under the measures set out in either subsection (2) or subsection (4), or
(b) meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).
(9) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is a threat to public order—
(a) the Secretary of State is not required to give the person leave under this section, and
(b) if such leave has already been given to the person, it may be revoked.
(10) In this section, if the person is aged below 18 years of age, the best interests of the child must be taken into consideration in accordance with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
(11) In this section—
“positive conclusive grounds decision” means a decision made by a competent authority that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking;
“threat to public order” has the same meaning as subsections (3) to (7) of section 62.
(12) This section is to be treated for the purposes of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 as if it were provision made by that Act.’
This new clause would provide new statutory support for victims in England and Wales after a conclusive grounds decisions. It would provide leave to remain for all victims with a positive conclusive grounds decision for at least 12 months to receive support, assist police with their enquiries or seek compensation.
Amendment 127,page57,line3 leave out clause 57.
Amendment 128,page57,line25 leave out clause 58.
Amendment 5,in clause 58, page57,line41, at end insert—
‘(5) The provision of relevant status information identifying a person as a likely victim of human trafficking for sexual services shall constitute a “good reason” for the purposes of this section.’
This amendment would mean that the credibility of victims of human trafficking for sexual services would not be called into question by reason of the late provision of information relating to that fact.
Amendment 6,in clause 58, page57,line41, at end insert—
‘(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where the person is a victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the person may be considered a victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution if there is evidence that the person—
(a) has been transported from one location to another on a daily basis;
(b) bears signs of physical abuse including but not limited to—
(i) branding;
(ii) bruising;
(iii) scarring;
(iv) burns; or
(v) tattoos indicating gang membership;
(c) lacks access to their own earnings, such as by having no bank account in their own name;
(d) has limited to no English language skills, or only such language skills as pertain to sexualised acts;
(e) lives or stays at the same address as person(s) meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d);
(f) sleeps in the premises in which they work.’
Under this amendment, late provision of relevant status information would not be taken as damaging the credibility of the person providing the information if that person were a victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution.
Amendment 7,in clause 59, page58,line5, at end insert—
‘(za) at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services;”.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue specific guidance on the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services.
Government amendments 64 to 69.
Amendment 3,page59,line39, leave out clause 62.
This amendment would remove clause 62, which excludes potential modern slavery victims from protection in certain circumstances.
Government amendments 70 to 75.
Amendment 149,page62,line18, leave out clause 64.
This amendment is consequential on NC47.
Government amendments 78, 76, 77 and 79 to 83.
Amendment 130,page63,line26, leave out clause 65.
This amendment is consequential on NC43.
Amendment 131,page66,line1, leave out clause 66.
This amendment is contingent on NC43, Clause 66 would no longer be required if NC43 is agreed to.
Amendment 148,page66,line33, leave out clause 67.
Government amendment 84.
Amendment 129,in clause 81, page79,line15, at end insert—
‘(6) Part 4 (age assessments) and part 5 (modern slavery) only extend to Scotland to the extent that a motion has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, bringing them into force in Scotland.’
Under this amendment, Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill would not enter into force in Scotland until the Scottish Parliament had given its consent.
Government amendments 85 to 90.
Amendment 16,in clause 82, page80,line3, at end insert—
‘(5) Sections [Time limit on immigration detention], [Initial detention: criteria and duration] and [Bail hearings] come into force six months after the day on which this Act is passed.’
This amendment would bring NC15-NC17 into force six months after the day on which the Bill is passed.

Diana R. Johnson: I rise to speak to new clause 3, which would put into law a specific offence for trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. We know that serious organised crime networks are deeply involved in this trade in human misery. I thank Kat Banyard at UK Feminista and Tom Farr at CEASE—the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—UK, who have helped to draft new clause 3, and the Humber Modern Slavery Partnership at the Wilberforce Institute in Hull for all its help.
Although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 covers exploitation broadly, the catastrophically high number of women and girls trafficked into the UK for the sex industry means that it merits a specific offence. The latest figures from the national referral mechanism show that 60% of women and girls who were identified as potential victims in the past year were trafficked for purposes including sexual exploitation. In 2020, 94 women and 624 girls were trafficked and sexually exploited. These women need specific and targeted protection.
New clause 3 would ensure that the link between human trafficking and sexual exploitation is acknowledged. It would aid efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking and broader violence against women and girls by providing a framework that would ensure that the authorities respond to individuals who may have been previously viewed as criminals as though they are, in fact, victims of sexual exploitation.
I also want to speak to amendments 5 to 7, which focus on stopping late disclosure affecting credibility and providing guidance to help the relevant authorities  to identify victims. Andrew Smith of the Humber Modern Slavery Partnership, an experienced practitioner, told me:
“We know there are various reasons why we might see late disclosure by victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking. Victims may not identify as victims first and foremost, it can be only when a person is removed from the exploitative environment that they understand they were in fact being abused and exploited.”
And yet, the Bill proposes a time limit on disclosure.
The Modern Slavery Policy Unit, co-led by Justice and Care UK and the Centre for Social Justice, stated:
“Presuming late disclosure of modern slavery damages credibility will create barriers to effective identification and engagement with victims.”
The Bill, as it stands, will make identifying and assisting victims of human trafficking more difficult.
Amendment 5 would stop late disclosure affecting the credibility of a claim of being trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The Home Office’s modern slavery statutory guidance states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Victims may also be reluctant to self-identify for a number of other reasons that can make understanding their experiences challenging.”
This amendment acknowledges Home Office guidance by ensuring that late disclosure does not damage credibility.
Amendment 6 sets out how a person who makes a late disclosure might be better identified by any relevant authority.

Theresa May: I am very interested in what the right hon. Lady is saying. If we are to stop modern slavery, we must ensure that we catch the perpetrators, which requires victims to be able to come forward with evidence. She is outlining certain elements of the Bill that she fears will restrict victims’ ability to come forward, and I am concerned that the public order disqualification threshold and the time period on slavery and trafficking information notices will also have that effect. Does she share my concerns about those aspects and hope that the Minister will address them specifically today?

Diana R. Johnson: I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention and pay tribute to her for, as Home Secretary, bringing in the Modern Slavery Act. I sat on the Bill Committee for that Act and I remember well the debates that we had. She should be very proud of her work on this issue, and I absolutely agree with her comments on what the Bill will lead to.
To return to amendment 6, I want to make it clear that putting these guiding factors in the Bill would provide a deeper understanding for the authorities of what they should be aware of and how to identify victims.
Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the specific factors that may indicate that somebody is a victim of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. That would provide a framework for the relevant authorities to refer to when trying to discern the type of exploitation that has taken place.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), argued against these amendments in the Bill Committee, stating that the Government did not want to create a “two-tiered system” based on the exploitation that a victim had  faced. I think that is simply wrong. Acknowledging the distinct features of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, as opposed to, for example, forced labour, would improve the authorities’ response and the ability to prosecute and find the perpetrators. Recognising and identifying difference would not create a hierarchy; rather, it would make the system more effective and accurate. The Minister also stated that delineating between trafficking for sexual exploitation and trafficking for other purposes would motivate individuals to put forward falsified referrals. However, all the evidence shows that victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation need more encouragement to come forward, not less.
Finally, I want to speak in support of new clause 47 and the supporting amendment 149, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He has worked assiduously on protections for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery for many years. The new clause would provide all victims who receive a conclusive grounds decision with 12 months’ leave to remain to either recover, claim compensation or assist the police. The Government need to do more to protect people who have suffered from these horrendous crimes.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. Mr Speaker. I will speak to my new clause 47, which has been signed by Members on both sides of the House. The aims of the new clause, which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) kindly referred to, are very simple. It is not a soft option, but a decent and reasonable one that does two things.
First, it deals with the issue of giving people who have gone through the national referral mechanism, who are therefore rightly in the system, longer to be able to settle and to be properly helped and supported. That is a humanitarian position, having already decided that such people have suffered as a result of modern-day slavery. That was the purpose of the Modern Slavery Act, which was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and this proposal will make that even better as we go forward and learn from it.
The second aspect is very important. The police keep telling us that, if they had more time to help those people to give testimony, we would get many more prosecutions and we would, ironically, shut down more of the ghastly criminal channels that are bringing these people in. This is about being strong in both prosecution and humanitarian terms, and that is the purpose of the new clause. I remind everybody that when the Centre for Social Justice wrote the first big paper about modern-day slavery, my right hon. Friend—we were both in Government at the time—was moved and decent enough to be able to push this point in government and put the legislation through, which meant that we were the first country in the world to acknowledge modern-day slavery and legislate for it. We should be proud of that. It is one of those things on which the British Parliament historically will be spotted for having led the way worldwide. Other Parliaments have followed suit—not all of them, but many have—with their own versions of that legislation.
We should be proud that a Parliament can work to do right by people who have too often been abused. I also remind those here today, and others who may or may  not be watching, that the National Crime Agency figures now show that between 6,000 and 8,000 modern slavery offenders are in the UK, but there were just 331 prosecutions in 2020 under the Modern Slavery Act and only 49 convictions. Does that not tell us a story? It tells us that, good as we think we are, we are not winning this battle, and the police know it.

Tahir Ali: On that point about convictions and the police, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the police need more resources to tackle and eradicate modern slavery?

Iain Duncan Smith: I agree, in principle, that if we are to get more prosecutions it is vital that those who are pursuing these characters should be well-funded. Although that is not part of this particular new clause, it is certainly within the wider scope of the Bill.

Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very strong point. Is it not one of the problems that victims of any kind of slavery are inevitably isolated, frightened and often unable even to leave the property, factory or home where they are working? They do not necessarily know where to go and, if the local police are not attuned to the problem, they get no help there. They are then completely stuck and in a very dangerous and vulnerable situation. Is there not an issue of both police training and convincing local authorities and all other public services that they have to be attuned to the desperation these people face, rather than the danger of prosecution for what could be—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. All I can say is that I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to speak I have plenty of room on the list. Save your speech to read shortly, if you want to.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to you for clarifying, Mr Speaker.
I will just say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course he is right, and it is important for us to understand that this is an issue not of asylum or migration but decency. He will know—even if he does not, I am going to say it to the House—that a significant chunk of those who are now part of the modern-day slavery ghastliness emanate from the UK. It is important that local authorities and others understand that they are looking not just for people who are trafficked in, but for those being trafficked within the UK. That is an important point. I agree with him, and the point of today’s debate is to try to raise that issue.

Peter Bone: The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) makes a pertinent point, but is not Justice and Care—and its navigators who help victims of trafficking with the criminal justice system—one of the success stories? We get more prosecutions because of that charity and the work it does.

Iain Duncan Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for signing the new clause, and he is absolutely right. Justice and Care has done a phenomenal amount of work; I am enormously grateful for its guidance and we have worked together on this matter. He is quite right to congratulate the organisation; without it, I suspect this would have been very difficult.
Let me bring in two examples that illustrate the problem. First, a Home Office local authority pilot found that all 62 adult survivors receiving support through the project in 2018-19 supported a criminal investigation, which makes my point that, with the right support, people do the right thing. They lose their fear, they understand that they are protected and they will give evidence. Secondly, Justice and Care found that 89% of victims supported by victim navigator support workers chose subsequently to engage with the police.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that it is important that we understand and separate this question out from all the other arguments that go on about migration and asylum. This is ultimately about helping ourselves and helping the victims. The two go together, and that is the important issue.
It is also worth reminding ourselves of the cost of modern slavery right now, without the resolution that we require and that this new clause would bring. The Home Office estimates the cost at £328,000 per modern slavery victim—a total of £32 billion using 2020 estimates of 100,000 victims from the Centre for Social Justice. I will just repeat that figure: £32 billion is the overall cost. That does not include court, prison and probation costs, or the costs of failed or aborted prosecutions due to insufficient evidence. So the case becomes stronger and stronger that this Bill offers the opportunity to do the right thing here.
Some objections have been raised by my friends on the Government Bench. They have talked about foreign criminals making fraudulent claims to avoid immigration removal. I want to deal with that issue here. I am clear that in this clause we want help and support, but we also want a minimum of 12 months leave to remain after victims clear the NRM. That is vital.
There are issues. People say, “Oh, hang on, that’s a pull factor.” They say that more people will immediately claim “on the steps of the aircraft”—I think that is the phrase used—that they are modern slavery victims and therefore they will get into the system. No, is the answer. No one will claim that because they have heard that they will get more than six months if they get through and they might get 12 months.
People might claim, if they are not modern slavery victims, to get into the process at the gateway of the NRM. If we think there is a pull factor, that if anywhere is where it would be. Giving people who are through the NRM longer is a genuinely decent thing to do and a powerful thing to do in prosecutions. If there is a problem and the Government perceive there to be a problem, I suggest with all humility that they need to look at the gateway, which is the NRM, not at what we do to the people who have got through.
Sure, if every now and then somebody who is completely messing around with the system gets through—no system is perfect—the Government can reserve the right to deal with them separately; but please, please let us understand that we should not be in the business of cracking down on those we believe have got through justifiably. We should be in the business of supporting and helping them for their own sake, with the by-product that they will help us in due course to crack down on those gangs.  I would have thought that must be a priority for any Government. The new clause allows victims to be excluded if they pose a threat to public order, and it has no significant impact, I believe, on immigration levels.
The problem right now is that clause 64 as it stands is too narrow; it is narrower even than the existing policy, which is a problem. I think the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North also raised that point. Linking leave to remain to needs arising from exploitation leaves victims unsure whether they will qualify. That is a major problem for them and will leave them even less likely to co-operate in due course.
It is almost impossible to separate needs that arise directly from exploitation from those arising from pre-existing vulnerabilities. It is really difficult—all the evidence makes that very clear. The criteria do not consider the risk of re-exploitation, another important point. What is the fear someone has if they have been exploited and they go into the system? It is that they will be out and they will be back into the hands of the very same people—only now those people will believe they were ready to give evidence against them, so the exploitation will be even worse.
On leave conditional on engagement with the police, there would be a problem if the Government were to say, “No, no, we can in guidance make it clear that they could have 12 months, or even more, if they were co-operating with the police.” I will just say that if I were a human rights lawyer, I would bring a judicial review against the Government every single day on that one. That is now coercion. They are saying, “You might have rights and we might want to help you, but, first of all, where’s the money? Let’s see what you’re doing before we act decently and give you anything.”
I simply say to my colleagues on the Front Bench that that would be a wrong move. If they start down that road, they will end up in court on almost every single case, justifying whether they gave someone three months, 12 months or 14 months. It will end up in court. As all Members will know, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, the last thing Governments want is to do is give themselves an opportunity to be in court under a judicial review. I see my right hon. Friend smiling at that one. Anyone who has served as Home Secretary will know that every day you come into the office someone tells you how many times you are about to be “JRd”. So being decent and straight and doing what we have asked in new clause 47 will help the Government as well, because they will not have to end up spending vast sums on defending—sometimes—the indefensible in the courts.

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, which illustrates the importance of the availability of judicial review. Looking towards what might be coming down the line in this regard, should I make an assumption about having his support on that occasion?

Iain Duncan Smith: You would call me out straightaway, Mr Speaker, if I went so far as to enter into another debate. Tempting though the offer is from my right hon. Friend—I call him that because of the time we spent in government together, and because we agree on so many issues—he will, I am sure, forgive me if I say that I am not yet aware of any Bill that is due to come before us. I will leave it there.
The Government have recognised victims’ need for stability and consistency in the support that they receive. That is a good move, and I thank them for it. I welcome the intention to provide a guaranteed 12-month minimum period of tailored support for all confirmed victims; that is particularly important. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), to bear in mind, when she rises to sum up the debate, that—as I have already said to you, Mr Speaker—I intend to press the new clause to a Division unless the Government make it clear that they have listened very carefully to this and other debates on the subject. The minimum guarantee will serve as a major stabiliser. If the Government are prepared to accept that, and perhaps table an amendment in another place, I shall be prepared to wait and see what happens.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to considering how best to support victims through the criminal justice process. They need to be serious about that, and I hope to hear a clear statement that modification and improvement are required. There remain concerns about the current restriction of support to
“needs arising from exploitation criteria”,
and the Government will need to deal with that as well.
Let me end by saying that we must separate the concept of modern day slavery from the rows about asylum seeking. Many people come over here with good cause; I personally do not blame those who are fleeing for economic reasons when things are desperate. I accept that we must have rules and restrictions, but I ask the Government to consider those who have been trafficked, those who are being persecuted, and those who are being used for the purpose of sexual or any other exploitation.
When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, we knew that gangs were getting women in particular over here, giving in their names to claim benefit, and then pushing them into brothels and other places. That is what we want to stop. We want to stamp out the exploitation of women, and men, against their will, both at home and as a result of their being trafficked into the UK. If the Minister can give me, and the House, an assurance that she gets this, and that the Government—my Government—are prepared to make the 12 months a de minimis and to look carefully at how the support can be given and how people can be protected through this process after they go through the NRM, I may feel inclined not to press the new clause.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Holly Lynch.

Holly Lynch: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the powerful contribution from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I will come to the merits of his new clause, but let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) not just on the new clause and amendments that she has tabled, but on receiving her damehood at Windsor Castle yesterday. There could be no more fitting tribute in recognition of her services to politics and her community, and I was delighted to see her collect that recognition yesterday.
We have grave concerns about part 5 of the Bill, which would introduce detrimental changes in modern slavery provisions and the national referral mechanism. New clause 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend, has our backing for all the reasons that she outlined. I would struggle to find a more heinous crime than moving another human being across borders, or across the country, in order to force them to have sex and for their abuser to make a profit. Given the utterly depressing rises in this type of criminality and exploitation, my right hon. Friend will have our full support if she is minded to press the new clause to a vote.
Provisions in part 5 will make it harder to identify, safeguard and support victims of modern slavery in securing prosecutions against their abusers. Our new clause 6 will ensure that no child victim of trafficking or modern slavery is denied protection because of those provisions. The new clause follows the many battles that we had in Committee in calling on the Government to hear the pleas of organisations such as The Children’s Society and Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, and those of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, and to recognise the vulnerability of child victims of trafficking and modern slavery, something that they have failed to do throughout the Bill’s passage so far.
The Government have sought to suggest that a fear of the national referral mechanism being abused warrants the introduction of barriers to accessing it. I remind them that the Home Office’s own statistics show that, of the 10,613 potential victims of modern slavery referred to the NRM last year, 47% were children. There was a 10% increase in the number of child referrals last year, and the single biggest type of exploitation was criminal exploitation. The Home Office’s own publication states:
“For those exploited as children, an increase in the identification of ‘county lines’ cases has partially driven the rise in the number of cases categorised within the ‘criminal exploitation’ category, with 40% of all child referrals for criminal exploitation being flagged as county lines.”
It is clear that children who are the victims of vicious county lines gangs will be among those most detrimentally affected by these changes. Just this week, we heard that the Government were getting tough on county lines gangs, but if they pass these proposals today unamended, child victims trapped by those gangs will be met with unnecessary barriers to both freedom and justice.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady is talking about an exceptionally important issue, the trafficking of children. While we in this country probably lead the world in looking after adult victims, we fail our child victims. Do the hon. Lady and her party support a revision of that situation, so we can protect children in the same way that we protect adults?

Holly Lynch: As the Minister will recall, we pushed for that time and again in Committee. The Bill makes no distinction between adults and children who are victims of trafficking and slavery. That failure to recognise the age-related vulnerability of a child constitutes a glaring omission, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for seeing what else we can do to press the issue during the Bill’s subsequent stages.
If the Government require any further persuading, the legislation in its current form contravenes their own existing statutory guidance, which states:
“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”
The changes introduced in the Bill mean that a child can only access protection from abuse if they disclose details of their trauma, against a Home Office-mandated timeline, or else have their credibility as a victim discredited, and can only access NRM support if they are not deemed to be a threat to public order as outlined in clause 62. The Government’s own guidance rightly says that a child who has been trafficked must be protected—no ifs, no buts, which means no clause 57, no clause 58 and no clause 62. I urge the Government to rethink all the modern slavery provisions, but as a minimum, in order merely to deliver on their own commitment to the general public this week, to adopt our new clause to prevent changes that would leave children more vulnerable to criminals and traffickers.
I want to make clear our support for independent victim navigators, who have already been mentioned by other Members. New clause 30 seeks to build upon the successful pilot programme launched by Justice and Care in 2018, which has now been extended, with eight victim navigators currently in post in five different police forces. I recently had the opportunity to visit the modern slavery team at West Yorkshire police with Justice and Care to gain a better understanding of the incredibly impressive work undertaken by those navigators in providing vital support to victims to rebuild their lives, which is what then facilitates prosecutions. An interim report has shown that, up to June 2021, the programme has provided strategic advice to 392 modern slavery investigations and given intensive support to 202 victims. Significantly, 89% of the victims supported by those navigators have chosen to engage with police investigations, compared with just 33% nationally, and 120 suspected exploiters have been arrested in cases supported by victim navigators. I know this is something we can all celebrate.
The most recent data from the Crown Prosecution Service shows that completed prosecutions for offences flagged as modern slavery have decreased from 349 in 2019 to 267 in 2020, which is a fall of 23%. This was despite the fact that the number of cases referred by the police to the CPS increased from 275 to 331, so it is clear that this programme represents some of the best practice in supporting victims and securing prosecutions—something that the current stats tell us needs to improve. We are aware that the Government are looking at this programme, and I very much hope that the Minister will provide confirmation of their support for this approach. Areas of consensus on this Bill have been sparse, but we can all agree that securing prosecutions against the perpetrators of trafficking and modern slavery has to be a priority, and this new clause would help us to make that a reality.
In the time I have left I want to speak in support of new clause 39, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), which reflects the concerns raised by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, particularly regarding clause 62. I know   that it has support across this House and in the other place. Similarly, we very much welcome the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green’s new clause 47. I know that this is an issue he cares deeply about, and that he has done valued work with Justice and Care and others on the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill with Lord McColl in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman raised concerns about this section of the Bill on Second Reading, and we echo the need for support for victims in relation to their care and their immigration status to be extended and enhanced, not only because that is the right thing to do in light of the exploitation they have had to endure but in order to bring abusers before the courts. The proposals are in line with the Work and Pensions Committee’s 2017 recommendations, and have once again won support from across Parliament.
We are very supportive of amendments 127 and 128, tabled by the Scottish National party to remove clauses 57 and 58, having voted against those clauses standing part of the Bill in Committee. The clauses introduce trafficking information notices that would force victims to provide details about the abuse and trauma that they had been subjected to, before a Home Office deadline. Otherwise, their credibility as a victim would be damaged due to late disclosure. As we have already argued, that delayed disclosure would be almost inevitable for those who had been subjected to the worst possible trauma.
Clause 57 seeks to mandate, rather than encourage, early disclosure by survivors of human trafficking and modern slavery, with the Minister confirming in Committee that information notices could be used prior to a reasonable grounds decision being made. Such a decision needs to be made within hours of a referral being made. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North has pointed out, the Home Office’s statutory guidance states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. It is vital for decision makers to have an understanding of the mitigating reasons why a potential victim of modern slavery is incoherent, inconsistent or delays giving details of material facts. Throughout this process it is important to remember that victims of modern slavery have been through trauma”.
That is the Government’s own statutory guidance, so if that guidance is to mean anything, these clauses should have no place in the Bill.
Government amendment 80 makes provisions for a survivor of trafficking to be removed to a country that is not a signatory to the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, if the UK has made an agreement with that country. This is one of around 80 amendments tabled after the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and days before Report that have potentially massive implications. This is quite frankly an outrage. I have written to the Procedure Committee to express my concern at the disregard for parliamentary scrutiny we have seen with this Bill. I simply ask the Minister to outline what, if any, agreements have been made, and with which countries. What are the details of those agreements? We should have had this detail on Second Reading and in Committee, and we wish to put strongly on record our opposition to this amendment, as I suspect the Minister cannot begin to answer my questions.
The fact that by far the greatest number of referrals to the NRM last year were of British nationals raises the question of why these provisions are in a Bill about immigration at all. The way part 5 has been drafted means that some of the most vulnerable people, who have been subject to the worst possible trauma, will face the greatest barriers to support, protection and justice, and I hope that hon. Members have heard our concerns and will support our amendments.

Richard Fuller: I rise to speak to new clause 39, standing in my name and the names of the Chairs of the Procedure Committee, the International Development Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. For a variety of reasons, none of those colleagues can be with us today, and I feel that I am a poor substitute for them in making these points—

Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Fuller: With great modesty, I shall.

Iain Duncan Smith: Can I just reassure my hon. Friend that, by the very fact that he is speaking to this new clause, he is more than a substitute and that he is on the side of right?

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One other aspect of this is that it has given me the opportunity to have a fresh look at an area of legislation that I have not been as deeply involved in as he has. I might therefore raise some concerns that the Minister might not get from other quarters, with a keen focus on the legislation dealing with modern-day slavery.
I wish also speak in support of amendment 3, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I will be pleased to hear him later expressing his support for my new clause, as I also hope the SNP will. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her indication of support. The reason I say that is that my new clause has not been selected for separate Division, and it is therefore important that this House sends a clear and unequivocal cross-party message to the other House, where this issue can perhaps be looked at anew.

Alistair Carmichael: I am sure that the House will be on tenterhooks to know, so I can put it out of its misery and tell the hon. Member that I will be more than happy to support his new clause.

Richard Fuller: I am very pleased to be off those tenterhooks, although I am never very sure what tenterhooks are. They do not sound very comfortable.
New clause 39 provides the Government with an opportunity to achieve their objectives but on a more considerably secure legal footing than their current proposals would permit. The new clause has been informed by the concerns raised by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton. Clause 62 currently seeks to disqualify potential victims of trafficking from the protections afforded under the national referral mechanism. Those protections are important not just as a manifestation of the mercy of our country towards those whose lives have been made wretched by the exploitations of others but to enable more effective prosecution of the perpetrators of such trafficking.  Consideration of exclusion from these protections therefore requires careful assessment of the consequences for both those factors. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, it should be considered in the context of our country’s leading position in international law on human trafficking. That is a position that we should not give up at all lightly.
My first concern with clause 62 as proposed is to ask: where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that access to the national referral mechanism is being abused, and where is the evidence from the Government on the impact of their proposal? My second concern with clause 62 is that it does not appear to address vexatious or unwarranted claims regarding access to the national referral mechanism. That point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green when he was speaking to his new clause. This is the wrong piece of legislation to do what the Government hope is the right thing, but which many of us fear will make the situation worse rather than better. In the absence of evidence for why this is a logical measure to adopt, I am perplexed as to why clause 62 has been drafted in this way.
My concern is also that subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) provide a very low bar for disqualification based on criminal sentencing. For those, like me, who are not familiar with modern slavery, it may sound odd that there is public interest in supporting people who have committed crimes either here or, more likely, overseas that carry a 12-month sentence—that is the bar—but that public interest is the same public interest as we have in trying to reach the main perpetrators in county lines drug gangs or serious fraud cases.
The public interest is in enabling sufficient evidence to be collated to bring successful prosecutions against the co-ordinators of those crimes, which is where I fear this clause falls short in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f). I see good reasons in the other subsections and paragraphs for why clause 62 makes sense, but subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) are clearly very different. I am interested in understanding the Minister’s logic.
Although this is an immigration Bill, clause 62 will largely apply to people already here, including British citizens, who currently make up the majority of victims. Because it refers to the national referral mechanism, most British victims will fall foul of this clause. The data suggests that the vast majority of British victims would fail under the Bill’s disqualifying remit, as the majority of cases involving British victims involve criminal exploitation. Even those who fall under labour or sexual exploitation often participate in criminal activities as part of their exploitation and so may end up being “unworthy” of support. I fear that is not what we are trying to do, and it should not be in an immigration Bill.
Another concern that has been raised with me is that there are currently significant difficulties in bringing prosecutions for modern slavery. As previous speakers have mentioned, with approximately 10,000 potential victims of modern slavery identified in the UK last year and only 238 convictions, it is clear that the process is at risk of being overloaded.
How does it help for there to be new additional legal requirements to investigate the criminal history of each and every potential victim who is seeking access to the  national referral mechanism? How on earth will that help? Have we not been here before, more than a decade ago? I do not like to refer back to the bad old days of immigration under Labour, but what a complete mess Labour made of it. The lives of many of my former constituents in Bedford, and the constituents of many hon. and right hon. Members here, were ruined by the Home Office’s processes, and those processes are still not where they need to be. With this new provision on access to the national referral mechanism, the Home Office is at it again, making it more complicated, making it more difficult and, ultimately, making a rod for its own back.
New clause 39 would remove children from the scope of clause 62, which is important. We do not want children to fall foul of other rules and regulations, certainly when it comes to their criminal record or otherwise. Will the Minister address that directly?
The new clause preserves the Government’s power to remove individuals from the UK who pose
“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”.
We understand the Government want to make these changes, and there may be good reason for doing so, but let us set the bar higher and let us make it more pertinent so that we do not block the whole system and unduly use immigration law to address modern slavery. That seems a sensible change to make.
New clause 39 would change the wording of the Bill so that a person who claims to have been trafficked improperly will not be treated as having acted in bad faith, which is more in line with the trafficking convention. When a Government seek to conflate effective modern slavery legislation a little too much with immigration law, it is important that we refer to the founding principles of that first set of legislation. Let us not be wishy-washy by saying we can make it up as we go along. Let us not import one schedule from one Act and say it will work fine in this Bill, which seems sloppy. It seems much better to place it more firmly and resolutely in international conventions and other aspects of international law.
New clause 39 will ensure that the most vulnerable victims of modern slavery, including children, are able to come forward without fear of punishment to be identified, to access safeguarding and support, and to have the opportunity to engage and support criminal justice processes—that is the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) earlier in the debate.
Coming at this anew, I fear the Government have tried too closely to conflate effective legislation on human trafficking with legislation on immigration. New clause 39 seeks to help them by securing their objectives more solidly in the law on modern slavery, rather than on the more perilous aspects of immigration law that they are currently pursuing. It seeks to avoid some of the unfair excesses, particularly regarding children, that will cause upset to many. Ultimately, it seeks to be more effective in the prosecution of the Government’s immigration aims by avoiding the Home Office building up huge backlogs and chasing its tail on pieces of information that have no due regard in our law.

Stuart McDonald: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
Yesterday we badly damaged the UK’s reputation for upholding the refugee convention and the rights of refugees, and today’s clauses risk undermining the protection offered to victims of trafficking and modern slavery. That is particularly frustrating because a lot of good work has been undertaken in Stormont, Westminster and Holyrood to put in place legislative frameworks for tackling trafficking and modern slavery.
Just as yesterday’s clauses failed to address the real failings in the asylum system, the clauses we are debating today do not address the real and significant problems we all face in our efforts to tackle trafficking. They will not lay a glove on traffickers and, in some cases, they will give traffickers extra power and ammunition over their victims and will discourage victims from reaching out for support and assisting prosecutions.
The problems we all face include: the fact we almost certainly identify only a small fraction of trafficking victims and prosecute only a small number of traffickers; the massive delays in the national referral mechanism that see victims sitting in limbo for months and years as they wait for a decision; and the failure to give so many people the stability of the decent period of leave to remain that they need to recover. None of that is addressed in part 5. Instead, it reinforces the impression that efforts to protect victims of trafficking play second fiddle to immigration enforcement, just as decent treatment of asylum seekers and refugees played second fiddle yesterday.
On that note, although I absolutely agree that what we are debating today is distinct and separate from what we debated yesterday—in fact, they should be in separate Bills—it is important that we recognise there is an overlap. Importantly, some of the provisions this House approved yesterday will apply to certain victims of trafficking, including the new criminal offences in relation to arrival in the UK and the discriminatory two-tier asylum system that many trafficking victims will now enter. If I correctly recall our debates in Committee, the offence we put into law yesterday of entering or arriving without permission could result in trafficking victims being excluded from protection.
In particular, I spoke yesterday about this place’s awful habit of passing legislation that tells decision makers how to assess the evidence that they will obviously have in front of them but which we do not have in front of us and that we will never know anything about. Instructing decision makers to make adverse credibility findings in relation to trafficking victims because the evidence or information was provided late is especially pernicious and dangerous. As Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, both today and on Second Reading, it takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify themselves as a victim, let alone to present the evidence required to establish that fact. As we have heard, there are numerous reasons for that: fear of reprisals, shame, instructions or coaching from traffickers, the impact of trauma and mental health issues, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) set out earlier. All the clauses that we debated yesterday requiring negative credibility findings to be made will impact on  trafficking survivors who enter the asylum system, and clauses 57 and 58, which we are debating today, will impact on all who seek support as trafficking survivors.
As we argued in Committee, such a trafficking notice might serve a useful purpose if it was just that—a notice that information should be provided. Speaking from personal experience, it could focus the mind of solicitors who might be reasonably well practised in making claims on behalf of clients in relation to the refugee convention, or for immigration status, but who might have had significantly less experience of identifying and taking forward trafficking cases. I am sure lots of colleagues in the legal profession would identify with that.
In Committee, we argued to keep the notices but ditch the threat of sanctions. That approach was rejected by the Government, so we have tabled amendments 127 and 128, which would ditch the scheme altogether. In short, we cannot support a statutory scheme that threatens to punish trafficking victims for late provision of information. Most fundamentally, there can be no doubt that with such a scheme, there is a risk that survivors of trafficking who miss a mandatory deadline will simply withdraw from the whole process. The Bill requires that their credibility be treated as damaged, and all the talk of good reasons as an excuse will make a limited difference. In fact, the whole process risks becoming a vicious circle. I could provide evidence that was late because of the trauma of trafficking, but I would not be able to establish that I had been trafficked because my credibility would be damaged by providing that information late. That is a mess of a provision.
Going further, the scope of the provision is also bizarre, covering as it does not just statements made by the trafficking victim but statements made on their behalf. That could include evidence from their doctor, a counsellor or a social worker. Such reports should be considered on their own merits, not automatically discredited by utterly misguided provisions such as those we are discussing. A victim of trafficking could be in a position of needing to submit more evidence to strengthen their case, but by providing that evidence after a deadline set by the Home Office, they risk having their credibility damaged. They can be disbelieved either for providing not enough evidence, or for providing evidence late. What a Hobson’s choice that is for incredibly vulnerable people. The shadow Minister posed practical questions about the timing. We say, “Let’s take out the punishment through amendment 128,” or, at the very least, support the shadow Minister’s bid to disapply these dangerous provisions to children.
Our third amendment is 148, which probes the Government on the vague and broad provisions in clause 67 to disapply retained EU law deriving from the trafficking directive. In their modern slavery strategy of 2014, the then Conservative Government said that opting into that directive
“demonstrated our commitment to working with other countries in Europe to drive up standards across the continent in tackling trafficking”
and showed
“the UK’s commitment to tackling human trafficking and providing support to victims.”
The Government said that the directive
“paves the way for further engagement with EU-wide organisations and governments to share our prosecution and investigation expertise.”
Clause 67 disapplies that directive, in so far as it would be incompatible with the Bill and any subordinate legislation made under it. Given that the directive is so crucial to prevention, victim identification, protection and support, this proposal is concerning. We should be fully implementing the directive, not moving away from it.
Nothing is said about that provision in the equality impact assessment or the human rights memorandum, so we have no information about which parts of the directive the Home Office considers to be incompatible with this Bill, or which parts would cease to apply. How are anti-trafficking organisations and those who provide support and advice to survivors supposed to know what the law is? Can the Minister spell some of that out today? What other provisions of the directive might the Government want to ditch through subordinate legislation?
Before I address our last amendment, let me express support for amendment 3, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), to remove the disqualification provisions of clause 62. As all Opposition Members argued in Committee, those provisions are far too wide. For the same reasons, we support the alternative new clause 39, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, to secure compliance with the trafficking convention and protect children from disqualification. Rather than fixing the clause, the Government seem intent on making it worse through amendment 71, meaning that survivors who are identified as needing leave to remain to seek compensation, or to co-operate with investigations and prosecutions, will not get it.
We give our support to new clause 47, tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and in particular to the provisions requiring a grant of leave for 12 months, or longer if required because of personal circumstances.

Tommy Sheppard: My hon. Friend is making an excellent humanitarian case against aspects of the Bill. Does he agree that when the Government reject that argument, it will fuel the case for Scotland to become a politically independent country so that it can build a different immigration system on the basis of fairness and international solidarity, rather than prejudice and paranoia?

Stuart McDonald: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend says. We will continue to make the case against this Bill, although we all know that that case will be rejected. People who are watching will see our alternative proposals, and they are a strong argument for independence indeed.
In addition to saying yes to new clause 47, we support new clause 3 from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I mentioned at the start of my speech that Stormont, Westminster and Holyrood had all passed important legislation in this area, and that brings me to the key point that we have just touched on. Large parts of this issue are a devolved matter, and that is only partially recognised in the Bill. The same is true of the age assessment provisions in part 4. There are very good arguments for saying that legislative consent motions should be required from the Scottish Parliament for various provisions in parts 4 and 5, and that is why we have tabled amendment 129.
The whole disreputable scheme of trafficking notices, plus most law in relation to the recovery period, is surely within devolved competence, but clause 49 also sees the Secretary of State interfering in how local authorities go about discharging their duties in relation to devolved children’s legislation. I would be happy to share with the Minister a legal opinion by Christine O’Neill QC that has been published by the Scottish Refugee Council and JustRight Scotland, and that makes similar points. I am sure that devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales will also want to look closely at these points.
Our view is that this is a disaster of a Bill and, as the shadow Minister said, the whole legislative process leading up to it has been a disaster as well. The consequences for many vulnerable people will also be disastrous. That is as true of the provisions in relation to trafficking survivors as it is for asylum seekers and refugees. Although we have tried to ameliorate the worst aspects of the Bill, the whole rotten lot of it needs to be canned.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). He supports new clause 74, which is the main thrust of what I want to talk about today.
Across the House, we have seen support for measures to fight modern-day slavery and human trafficking, but I think we should start at the beginning. Only a few years ago, this House did not even recognise human trafficking. I can remember when I came into the House and Tony Blair was Prime Minister, the great Anthony Steen tried every week from the Opposition Benches to persuade the Government that human trafficking existed. The Council of Europe brought forward proposals about human trafficking, and, to the great credit of former Prime Ministers David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), we produced Europe’s leading anti-slavery legislation.
We should start by congratulating the Government on doing that, but we are here today to see how we can improve on that legislation. I will briefly mention my dissatisfaction with the way child victims of human trafficking are dealt with. As I have said on many occasions, we should follow the methods that we use for adults; we should not just put children into the care of local government, where they are routinely re-trafficked. That is not particularly to do with the clauses that we are debating today, but it is something that we need to look at.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made the very fair point that we are not talking about asylum, and we are not talking about economic migrants. With economic migrants—people coming here who should not be—the victim is this country. Human trafficking victims are people who have been tricked or coerced into coming to this country, mainly with the thought that they will get a job or a career.
Let me give an example. Somebody from Hungary came into this country thinking they were going to get a job in Belfast. Instead, they were locked up in a terraced house in Belfast. The locks were on the outside of the bedroom and that girl was repeatedly raped. She was  rescued by the police and looked after. That is human trafficking, and it is completely different from people coming across the channel in small boats.
I very much welcome the meetings I have had with the Minister on this issue and the tremendous work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green does. I also welcome the work of Justice and Care and, in particular, of Tatiana Gren-Jardan, who used to work for me when I was part of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking, and who has made this issue her passion and done so much to help the situation.

Iain Duncan Smith: While we are talking about Tatiana—she has been phenomenal in bringing cases forward and I pay tribute to her—it is worth reminding the House that she cannot be with us at the moment because she is about to give birth. We congratulate her on that.

Peter Bone: I can give the House an update: birth has not yet occurred and she is watching today’s proceedings. I wish her very well with the new baby.
Let me go back to the national referral mechanism. One thing that people misunderstand about new clause 47 is that they think it refers to when people go into the NRN, but it does not. It would apply for people who have “conclusive grounds”—people the Government agree are real victims of human trafficking. The difference between me and the Government is about what happens next. We have always looked after victims of human trafficking—it has been a really sensible process, with overall control given to the Salvation Army and then distributed through all the different charities and voluntary and religious groups that help to look after victims. But I want there not to be any victims in the first place. I want these evil gangs stopped. By the way, this is organised crime: they are ruthless and horrible and they do not care about people. They are quite happy to murder people. If we can shut them down, we will not have the victims, which is why the prosecution of these gangs is so important.
When we have discussed the failure to secure prosecutions in the past, it was argued, “Well, we prosecute on lesser offences so that we get convictions,” but these people are put away for only a small amount of time. We want to nail the people at the top and put them away for a very long time, to make it a dangerous thing to be involved in. If it is dangerous and they are likely to get caught and put away for a long time, they will not carry out this evil trade and will try something else.
The difference between me and the Government in respect of leave to remain, which is the crux of new clause 47, is that I think it should be given as a right to people who are confirmed as victims of trafficking if their immigration status is irregular. I say that for two reasons: first, they are much more likely to help to prosecute the evil gangs if they know that their immigration status is secure for a year; and secondly, if we do it not that way but on a piecemeal basis, there is a possibility, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred, that the lawyers will go to the court and say, “The only reason why this person  is saying that is because it is the only way she could have got leave to remain,” whereas if it is a right, they cannot use that argument at all.
I will listen with great interest to what the Minister says in response to the debate. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pushes new clause 47 to a Division, I will indeed support it. I know that the Minister and the Government share my desire to get these evil gangs; we just have a little difference on this point. Why doesn’t the Minister accept the new clause and perhaps add a sunset clause in the other place? Put two years on it, and if in two years nobody extra is prosecuted, we were clearly wrong. But if a lot more people are prosecuted, as I believe they would be, the Government could renew the sunset clause.
Everybody is trying to do the right thing here; we are just discussing the best way forward. I go back to the start and say well done to Anthony Steen and to all the Governments who have moved forward and made our country the best place to prosecute modern-day slavery. But we can do better, and we can and must do better with children. New clause 47 would help us to prosecute more evil gangs, so I very much support it and hope that the Government will accept at least its principle.

Margaret Greenwood: Numerous constituents have written to me with their concerns about the Bill. They fear that it will harm refugees and victims of trafficking and slavery and that it undermines our international commitment to human rights and the right to asylum. I share their concerns.
The Children’s Society has said that it is
“concerned that the provisions of the bill will have a significant impact on all child victims of trafficking”.
Notably, the charity has expressed support for Labour’s new clause 6, which would exempt victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking from many of the provisions in part 5 of the Bill if they were under 18 when they became a victim. Statistics show that 3,140 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office in the second quarter of 2021—the second highest number of referrals since the national referral mechanism began in 2009—and 43% of them claimed exploitation as children.
Serious concerns have also been raised about, and many Members have referred to, the proposals in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to serve trafficking information notices on potential victims of modern slavery and expect a response within a fixed timescale. Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, has said that
“will make it harder to identify those who have been exploited… Traumatised victims cannot disclose their suffering to order—it takes time to build trust and confidence.”
That is absolutely right.
The Government’s own statutory guidance on modern slavery states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Why do the provisions in the Bill run contrary to the evidence in the Government’s own guidance? This point relates to amendments 5, 6 and 7, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and have cross-party support. I also support my right hon. Friend’s incredibly important new clause 3, which would create an offence  for arranging or facilitating the travel of another person with a view to that person being sexually exploited in the UK.
We debate the Bill less than two weeks after the tragic loss of 27 lives in the English channel, yet the Government are intent on pushing ahead with their cruel pushbacks plan, despite Border Force officials saying privately that it is dangerous and unworkable, and despite the Joint Committee on Human Rights having said that pushbacks would
“create a situation where state actors were actively placing individuals in situations that would increase the risk”
On behalf of my constituent, who has more than 10 years’ experience in maritime rescue, I ask the Minister how the Government expect Her Majesty’s Coastguard to operate in a situation that it deems to be search and rescue but that the Home Office considers to be a pushback situation? He wants to know who will have the veto authority in such situations?
As Families Together has pointed out:
“No one chooses to cross the channel…unless they have no other option.”
Amnesty International has said that the Bill
“will cost not save lives. It will enable and empower ruthless criminal gangs not break them. It closes safe routes and opens none. It will harm women and girls along with the men seeking asylum, to whom Ministers appear to take such exception”.
I urge members from all parties to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the amendments and new clause tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others. I put on the record my support for the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), by the official Opposition, by the Scottish National party, and by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think you can take it from that selection, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the view of many of us here is that part 5 of the Bill requires some fairly urgent and radical surgery. In general terms, that is something to be regretted.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) was absolutely right to remind us of the history in relation to human trafficking in this House. He mentioned Anthony Steen, who ploughed a lonely furrow in the early days but was dogged in pursuit of that. I fear that it may not always be what he is remembered for, but ultimately he did a great deal of good in relation to this matter.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who, as Home Secretary, drove this with an unquestionable commitment—I saw that for myself in government. The fact that we now find the salami slicer starting to work and that, piece by piece, the provisions and protections that we have brought into operation to protect the victims of modern slavery are being taken away is, I think, a matter of regret.
I do not often tell tales from outside the Chamber, but I went up in the lift in Portcullis House with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead yesterday—I hope that she will not mind me referencing this—and apropos the House’s consideration of the Bill yesterday, she  asked what sort of a debate it had been. I replied, “Suffice it to say that I don’t think anybody would refer to it as being the House at its best.” It is to be welcomed that the temperature of debate today is perhaps a bit more measured. It also illustrates that, on a matter such as this, if one looks around the Chamber and sees the range of interests that have brought forward amendments, it is very easy still to build a consensus around this. The fact that the Government show no inclination or enthusiasm for building or maintaining that consensus is a matter of deep regret.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) referred to the credibility provisions. He is absolutely right. The idea that legislation should interfere with the assessment of something around credibility is fundamentally obnoxious. If any right hon. and hon. Members have ever spent any time in the Appeal Court, they will have seen advocates being pulled up occasionally for trying to reopen questions of credibility. The Appeal Court always says, “We are not interested. That was heard by the judge at first instance, and he or she alone can be the judge of these matters.” Trying to set out parameters around credibility in the way that is sought here is dangerous to say the very least.
I will touch on the matters that stand in my name. Amendment 3 seeks to leave out clause 62. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire made an excellent dissection of the effect of clause 62. He said that it was the wrong measure in the wrong place, and he is absolutely right. What we have brought here is more of a scalpel to the Bill, to remove the clause completely. It does sit with other measures in clause 5 in restricting the protections that are available to victims of modern slavery. In our view, this breaks our obligations to support the victims of human trafficking and undermines the fight against slavery and human trafficking. It will make victims less likely to come forward and to co-operate with law enforcement. Ultimately, the effect of it will be to strengthen the hand of the slavers.
Clause 62 works to exclude potential victims of slavery or human trafficking from protections on the grounds that they are a threat to public order or have claimed to be a victim in bad faith. I can put the concerns about this clause no better than Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who, in a letter to the Home Secretary, warned:
“I have grave concerns about this clause because it casts a wide net with the potential to prevent a considerable number of potential victims of modern slavery from being able to access the recovery and reflection period granted through the NRM. Without such support prosecution witnesses will be unable to provide witness evidence and this will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”
Those are the concerns of the Government’s own Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. We have to wonder why we have people in such positions if their advice is to be disregarded in this way.
In promoting new clause 43 and amendments 130 and 131, I fully declare that I am something of a cipher for the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—a declaration I make with absolutely no shame or embarrassment. ILPA has a long and distinguished record in this area and it comprises people whose views should be listened to.
Clause 65 brings legal advice and referral to the national referral mechanism for potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking within scope of legal aid funding, but only if it is attached to an existing immigration or asylum matter. New clause 43 would expand that test to legal advice by removing that requirement. It would also remove the requirement to assess the financial means of a person who requires advice on a referral to the NRM. The means test acts as a significant barrier to justice for people who are not eligible, as even the receipt of subsistence payments can be enough to exclude a person from accessing a lawyer.
The view of ILPA is that bringing this work within the scope of legal aid is particularly important for cases where there is no asylum claim but there is an immigration claim—for example, where the person may be eligible for a grant of discretionary leave to remain or leave as an overseas domestic worker if they were recognised as a victim of trafficking. These victims may be too scared to come forward to the authorities, or may not know what immigration options are available. The lack of access to independent advice is a powerful deterrent to people coming forward when they are escaping exploitation. The current position is that they would be unable to access legal advice easily as immigration advice on this issue is not in scope for legal aid. This means that an application for exceptional case funding would need to be made and granted before the person could see a lawyer.
I think I made the point yesterday that so much of our immigration system has now become so complex that, for anyone who is not legally qualified to try to plot their own way through it without assistance, let alone somebody who may be working through issues such as using English as a second language or a foreign language, is virtually impossible.
I observe in passing that provisions in this part of the Bill that refer to unreasonable moves being taken in tribunal by applicants is something on which the Government should proceed with great caution. We have all seen through our own constituency case loads the way that the immigration services operate, and I suspect strongly that if the same test were ever applied to the Home Office as the Home Office seeks to apply in this case to applicants, it would find itself in some significant difficulty.

Alison Thewliss: I rise to support the amendments in the name of my colleagues. I also speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention. We have many concerns about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned, there is a degree of overlap between what I wish to say today and some of the measures that we addressed yesterday.
The UK Government propose a quasi-detention system for new arrivals. The all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention has taken a great deal of evidence on the harm that such facilities cause. We looked at Napier and Penally barracks, and others such as Tinsley House and Yarl’s wood, which were used for quasi-detention. We found, very much so, that these facilities undermined the health of vulnerable people, dehumanised them and also made vulnerable those who did not consider themselves that vulnerable to begin with.
Those facilities featured: physical and social isolation; prison-like conditions with people feeling under surveillance 24/7; and shared facilities, meaning a lack of dignity and privacy, and, of course, during the period of covid, the risk of covid, which the Government failed to take into account, basically facilitating an outbreak among those unlucky enough to be living there. Due to their very nature, the facilities also ended up being targeted by the far right, further making those who happened to be living there very, very vulnerable.
The evidence that we received in our inquiry found a lack of safeguarding, healthcare and access to legal advice. The Home Office equality impact assessment on the facilities set out that people seeking asylum were not analogous to British citizens and other permanent residents in need of welfare assistance. As we heard yesterday, facilities such as these and offshoring facilities were tried, and failed, in Australia.
The implication of what we are discussing today was discovered by the Jesuit Refugee Service, which in the course of its work encountered residents at Napier barracks whose asylum screening interviews had revealed clear indications of trafficking, yet individuals had been transferred to those sites when they should never have been there in the first place. This happened initially, which could perhaps be accepted as a mistake or oversight, but also as late as June 2021, when such issues should not still have been going on, and people should have been identified as victims of trafficking. Solicitors engaged in the site found similar circumstances, where people who had been trafficked ended up in this inappropriate accommodation.
The provisions are concerning in a number of ways, because such facilities are difficult for people to be in. I had a conversation with somebody earlier in the week who suggested that the UK Government and the Home Office have not thought this through. I disagree with that in some respects, because to me this is a very deliberate policy of removing people from legal support—their opportunity to make the best case of putting themselves before the immigration system—and from communities, where they could build links, settle in, make friends and engage with people who had perhaps come from their own countries. It is a deliberate policy of removing people from the healthcare and support they need to get well and recover from trauma. All those things make it easier for the Government to send these people away—and that is not done in the name of my constituents or my party. We do not agree with the proposals and this ideological pandering to the lowest common denominator, because the people we are speaking about are very vulnerable.
I fully support amendment 6 on late disclosure, because the provisions place people, such as those who ended up in this quasi-detention system, in a trap. I see people in my surgeries week in, week out who are already disbelieved by the Home Office. It puts people at risk to say that if they do not disclose everything at the point where they are being told that they must disclose, the case will be stacked against them.

Chris Stephens: Is this provision not of huge concern to constituents in Glasgow South West and Glasgow Central—women, in particular, who have been subjected to sexual violence and would not necessarily disclose that at the first interview?

Alison Thewliss: Indeed; they may take a long time, and may not have the language, to disclose that very traumatic experience. Those who were held in this quasi-detention system were not necessarily even provided with notice of their substantive interview. It was sprung on them, in many cases with very little notice. Let us imagine someone being woken up in the morning by somebody saying, “Today’s the big day—your substantive interview. Spill your guts”, and their not having the capacity to explain what happened to them, having not processed the trauma that they have been through, yet if they do not do so there and then, their case may fall apart completely. That is a brutal system, but not only do the Government have that system just now, they want to roll it out yet further.

David Linden: I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. She is absolutely right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), to place on record the fact that many women, for example, who have experienced sexual violence, will not feel comfortable declaring that in the first interview. Does she agree—we see this in our cases in Glasgow—that one of the common concerns that we get from constituents is that quite often when they go to these interviews, the person interviewing them does not have any qualifications or knowledge on these matters, and that therefore these constituents of ours, who she is right to say are incredibly vulnerable, pick up very quickly that even if they try to explain the situation to somebody, that person will not actually understand?

Alison Thewliss: Yes. I am sure that like me my hon. Friend has read through the transcripts of people’s substantive interviews, including some of the ludicrous questions that people have been asked by Home Office officials. There is just a lack of understanding of the trauma that people have been through. There is no way by which people are understood; rather, the Home Office is trying to catch people out at every turn. It is a game that people are not equipped to participate in.
The Government are failing victims of trafficking, both male and female. As difficult as it is for many women to explain how they have been trafficked, men who have been trafficked for sexual purposes will also find that very difficult to explain, particularly those who have been housed in mass accommodation such as Napier barracks; they will find it difficult to live among other men and to deal with that trauma there as well.
There was no privacy in Napier, Penally and the other facilities. Those men were asked to give their substantive interview and to speak to their lawyers without any privacy whatever, in common spaces such as kitchens. To explain their cases in earshot of other people, without having the privacy and the dignity that they should have, retraumatises people all over again. The Government should be ashamed of treating people this way. It is inhumane.
I want briefly to mention the work of the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, based in my constituency in Glasgow, which does amazing work to support women who have been trafficked. In my experience, the Home Office is not doing its bit. A woman came to speak to me at a surgery in 2017. She had limited English and had clearly been through traumatic experiences. She had first been encountered by the police in 2014, three years  prior to coming to me, but did not receive her substantive interview until 2017, and my office was still working on her case two years after that. How is somebody supposed to get on with their lives, heal, move on and make a new life for themselves away from trauma, when they are reminded of that trauma every day when they wake up in the morning—if they manage to wake up in the morning, because many also suffer lack of sleep and other symptoms of trauma?
The Home Office is not doing its bit. Although people should not be rushed into making disclosures, once they have done so and the case is under way, the Home Office should ensure that it is not delayed by petty bureaucracy. A lot of the bureaucracy in the case that I mentioned was as simple as getting the woman’s name and date of birth right, but we were going back and forth for months. The Home Office comes to lecture all of us on the asylum system being broken in this country, and I agree that it is certainly broken, but what the Government are proposing is certainly not the way to fix it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I call Jeremy Corbyn, although just before the right hon. Gentleman rises, let me say that I know that he is usually very brief, but it seemed like we had a lot of time for this business and we are now running out of time, so would people just be a bit sharper? It is not a general conversation, but a debate. Let us just get on with it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Sharpness is the order of the day; I will be very brief and very sharp.
This Bill is appalling in so many ways. I will come to that in just a moment. In this set of amendments, we are dealing with people who are suffering the most grotesque exploitation of almost anyone in the world—people who have been trafficked into sexual slavery, and into working illegally in factories and agriculture, and who have no recourse to any support anywhere. They are living in dangerous conditions. They are often isolated and have no one to turn to. While I appreciate that all the amendments are trying to provide better support and better protection for them, these people are the victims of slavery in every form imaginable.
Although I support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I do not quite understand why he limits the right to remain to 12 months, because if, at the end of that 12-month period, the person concerned is then faced with deportation, I would ask: deportation to where and under what circumstances? Would they not then be in danger in the country they have originally come from, or from the very gangs that have been called out, because of their seeking safety in this country?

Iain Duncan Smith: For clarification, we argued for the period as a de minimis, to give greater scope and time for the person’s case to be resolved fairly and reasonably. That was all. We could go further and further, but it is a compromise. I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I simply say to my colleagues  that it is a minimum that they can take further and extend further, and they should be encouraged to do so if they wish.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Clearly his amendment is better than no amendment, but I would want us to go a lot further, because if we do not give support to people who are complete victims, they will suffer in the most abominable circumstances. I therefore hope that the Bill can be strengthened.
This Bill is an appalling piece of legislation. It does not bring safety or humanity to people around the world. It will result in more people being put in danger. It will create a more draconian attitude towards refugees. There are 70 million refugees around the world. They are victims of war, human rights abuse and poverty. Some of them are victims of wars that we ourselves have been involved in. We need to reset the dial and work globally towards reducing the need for people to seek refuge or asylum by dealing with the issues at source. That is a more positive method than the incredibly draconian measures included in the Bill.
There are many victims around the world in refugee camps and many other places. Having met many people in refugee camps and those who are victims of trafficking and modern slavery, I know they have a thirst to live a life and make a contribution to our world and our society. This Bill does not give them those chances. It further criminalises people who, out of desperation, put themselves in the most terrible danger. Sadly, 27 died in the channel, while thousands have died in the Mediterranean, and many more around the world. We need a global call for humanity, not repression.

David Linden: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I remarked to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) at the beginning of the debate that it was significant that both a former Leader of the Opposition and a former Prime Minister were still in the Chamber. We owe them a huge amount of respect for sticking around and informing the debate, even if our politics often differ from theirs and we do not agree with absolutely everything they say.
The Bill is hostile towards refugees, flies in the face of the refugee convention, and goes against the advice of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, non-governmental organisations and human rights lawyers. Put simply, the Bill takes some of the most vulnerable people in the world and exacerbates their risk of poverty, exploitation, and family separation. In speaking to this group of amendments and new clauses, I wish to offer my support for amendment 128, which would remove clause 58, and a number of other amendments and new clauses, but in the interests of brevity I will focus on part 5 of the Bill, which deals with modem slavery.
Slavery is not yet a thing of the past. For so many people, slavery does not exist simply in the history books but is the horrific reality they face every day. From human trafficking victims to those undertaking involuntary labour and those in forced marriage, modern slavery impacts countless lives, and it is a sad but inescapable reality that it happens in many of our constituencies. Its scale is unknown, but the International Labour Organisation has estimated that more than 40 million people worldwide are victims of modern slavery.
I pay tribute to Restore Glasgow in my constituency and the great work that it does to raise awareness of human trafficking, particularly teaching people to spot the signs of trafficking. Many of us wrongly assume that human trafficking and slavery occurs behind closed doors, but in some cases—indeed, far too many—it is hiding in plain sight on our high streets and in our shop fronts. I want to particularly raise this form of exploitation and highlight the forced labour of people who work in industries that are less regulated, such as car washes and nail bars. Many of us will walk past these shops every day and think nothing of the low prices or the long hours worked. I am asking not just hon. Members in this House but everyone watching this debate to really consider their purchasing power. We need to stop and think about that £5 car wash and that £10 set of nails. Bluntly, if four or five guys in flip-flops are washing your car for a few quid, then the alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear.
There should be greater regulation in these industries to help prevent cases of human trafficking and slavery occurring in the first place, and that is where I would challenge governments both local and national, and all across these islands, to go further. In 2020, the chief executive of the British Beauty Council, Millie Kendall, said of the nail salon industry that
“we are very under regulated and that’s a real problem for us.”
Ms Kendall asked the British Government to move to license the industry. As far as I can see, there is very little provision in legislation to deal with that aspect of modern slavery. The situation for so many victims and survivors is desperate, which only makes the Government’s failure on this worse. Figures released in 2020 highlight that any efforts to crack down on slavery have been weak and slow, with only 42 convictions on slavery and human trafficking in 2018, down from 59 in 2017 and 69 in 2016.
I have outlined aspects of modern slavery that I feel need to be further addressed, and I hope that the Minister will address some of those points in the wind-ups. However, I also ask the Minister and the Home Office to reflect on the fact that at least four Members representing the seven seats in the city of Glasgow have taken part in this debate. We so often hear from Conservative Members about their views on immigration and asylum. However, I would be willing to wager a safe amount of money that the amount of cases that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) have ongoing at the moment is probably more than every single Conservative Member has dealt with in the course of this year. That is because, as MPs who rightly welcome people to our city and take up asylum casework, we far too often see the significant failings of an asylum and immigration system that is utterly broken, making it so difficult for those we represent.
This Bill and much of what it represents is not what Scotland wants or voted for. Scotland is a welcoming country to refugees and asylum seekers. They are part of the rich tartan tapestry that makes up our communities. Indeed, they are our friends and our families with whom we break bread at community meals in places such as my native Cranhill. Earlier this year, my home city united and sent a clear message to the Home Office with the Kenmure Street protest, proving that once again all people, including refugees and asylum seekers, make Glasgow. Glasgow rejects this Bill and looks  forward to a day when Westminster’s right-wing immigration policies and dangerous anti-refugee rhetoric has no territorial application on our citizens, and instead we can form borders and nationality policy that is based on dignity, not on dog-whistle politics.

Anne McLaughlin: It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden).
I have said repeatedly how disgusted I am with this Bill in its entirety, so I will not go over that again, and I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would not let me. It is hard not to do it, but it is all on the record. In any case, whatever I say today is unlikely to change anybody’s vote, and that is what is so depressing about this. Today I will focus on what you want me to focus on, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is modern slavery and human trafficking. I will highlight two aspects of the many that I find greatly disturbing.
First, there is late disclosure. I am deeply concerned by the measures in the Bill that aim to damage the credibility of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. Using late disclosure as a reason to damage their credibility only serves to create barriers to effective and vital identification and engagement with those victims. The Government, of course, in their usual, cynical way, believe that claimants are abusing the system and attempting to frustrate removal. They point to the rise in the number of trafficking claims, but that is down to a range of factors, including greater awareness of modern slavery among detention workers and others and an improved ability to recognise vulnerability, as a leading Hibiscus report highlighted. All the awareness-raising campaigns, supported by all the Governments on these islands, including this Government, were always going to increase those numbers—that is what we were looking for, surely. To use that increase as a reason to now cynically attack people is just despicable.

Peter Bone: The hon. Lady seems to be welcoming what Governments have done against slavery, and she says that raising awareness and encouraging people to report has created more victims. Does she support what this Government and previous Governments have done to make this country the leader in the fight against modern-day slavery?

Anne McLaughlin: I support any attempts to help people who are victims of modern slavery, of course I do. Some good measures have been taken—of course they have—but it depresses me that this Government continually assume that anyone displaying signs of vulnerability, who for a number of reasons might not be able to come forward and present their story to the authorities immediately, is somehow acting in bad faith or gaming the system. There is a distinct lack of compassion and understanding in equal measure regarding the severe trauma suffered by some victims and its impact on their testimony.
There are reasons why people are late in coming forward. I want to read something from the guidance for this Parliament’s Modern Slavery Act 2015. It states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure”—
the thing that we are now saying damages their credibility—
“difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder…Victims may also be reluctant to self identify for a number of other reasons that can make understanding their experiences challenging”.
Who wrote that? This Government did, so they know, yet they seek to punish victims by accusing anyone who fails to recount their traumatic experiences in time.
To state that someone has experienced exploitation is in many ways similar to domestic violence in terms of how complicated it is. Exploitation is often committed by someone the victim knows or is close to, and it can happen very gradually over a long time. Some victims of exploitation are unaware there is even a crime being committed against them until it is too late, which this Bill will only prove to exacerbate.
Some victims might not want to admit they have been exploited, particularly in cases of sexual abuse, where cultural sensitivities could mean a victim feels ashamed—shame that they should not feel, but do feel anyway. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out, men who are exploited may feel ashamed or degraded by their lack of agency. Let us not forget that a lot of victims are terrified that if they reveal information, they or their family, here or wherever they have come from, might be punished by the traffickers. That is how they get them. The Met police said recently that it takes two years on average to get a west African victim of juju-induced slavery to reveal what happened to them.
Then there are those who simply block it out. They do not consciously block it out; their unconscious mind cannot cope with it any longer. I had a friend many years ago who I used to visit every six months or so. One time I went to stay with her for the weekend. She worked as a cleaner in a local primary school. She had a normal life. She built a life for herself. She had a family and everything and this job. She was cleaning, and suddenly she had a flashback—for anyone who does not know, a flashback is not a memory; it is reliving the moment—to when she was eight years old and her stepfather was raping her. It was the most terrifying thing, clearly, but she was then in her 40s, and she only remembered it all those years later. She had the courage to speak to her siblings, one of whom had remembered it and had not told anybody. Sometimes it is simply that it is gone from someone’s memory, but it can come back, and we should not be punishing people in those cases.
These measures will not prevent false claims. Instead, they will create an even deeper mistrust and suspicion of the authorities, and the only people who will gain from that are, as others have said, those who are seeking to exploit and extort these vulnerable victims. Traffickers use the fear of the authorities as a means of control, and this Bill will just give them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said, a broader set of tools. I cannot work out whether those supporting these measures do not realise that, or just do not care. It is increasingly looking like the latter, particularly over the past couple of days and throughout Committee.
If I have time, I would not mind saying a little about public order disqualifications. Do I have time for that?

Eleanor Laing: It is at the hon. Lady’s discretion, but I think everyone wants the Minister to answer the questions that have  been asked this afternoon. If the hon. Lady goes on for very much longer, there will not be an opportunity for that. I am not stopping her, but I hope she will not take too much longer.

Anne McLaughlin: I will take your advice on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am little unsure whether we will get answers, because we have not any other time we have been asking for them.
Any disqualification from protection must be reserved for the most serious of offenders—those who pose a serious risk to the public or to national security. A public order disqualification for victims with prior convictions of 12 months or more is too wide, as others have said. There is a real danger that genuine victims who could give vital evidence against slavery networks, and who pose absolutely no risk to the public, will be excluded from that support.
The actual figures for referrals of offenders in immigration detention to the NRM are low, as was said earlier, and the Government have published no data to back up the sensationalist claims made in support of these measures. It is another theme running through every part of this Bill. There is nothing to back up their scaremongering claims. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) was also asking for evidence. I very much doubt the Minister is going to give us any, but let us wait and see.
I will move on, finally, to say that I fail to see why all of this is part of an immigration Bill. We are not talking about immigrants; we are talking about victims of criminal offences. In 2016, I sat on the Immigration Bill Committee, and a Government Member, who is not present and whose name I will not reveal, told me, “If people do not want to be trafficked, they should simply say no.” That demonstrated a crass misunderstanding of what trafficking is. These are people who are not trying to migrate to this country; they are simply caught up in exploitation and they end up here.
I will end by saying that I would love to hear what the Minister has to say. I have zero faith that we will hear anything. I have never ever been so ashamed as I am today, because I know that Members will vote for this Bill that will damage, exploit and kill vulnerable people, who they claim to care about. It is absolutely a disgrace.

Rachel Maclean: We have had an excellent debate. Despite some of the comments I have just heard from the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), there is more agreement across the House on the seriousness of these crimes and our determination to tackle them than there is disagreement.
The aims of the modern slavery elements of the Bill are twofold: to provide clarity on victims’ rights and entitlements, supporting effective recovery from this awful crime, and to increase prosecutions of perpetrators of the despicable crime of modern slavery. That is why we make clear for the first time in legislation that where a public authority, such as the police, is pursuing an investigation or criminal proceeding, confirmed victims who are co-operating and need to remain in the UK to do so will be granted temporary leave to remain. Our core principle is that the entitlements provided to victims are based on their needs, delivering a firm but fair  approach. The Nationality and Borders Bill will go further than ever before in putting modern slavery victims’ rights into law. At the same time, we will put in place safeguards to ensure that these important protections are provided to those who most need them.
I will begin by addressing the Government amendments. I will attempt to come on to the Opposition amendments, but I do not have very much time. Government amendments 64, 71 and 73 to 75, which will make changes to clauses 60 to 63, are technical amendments that seek to provide greater clarity on the protections provided to possible victims through the recovery period and on when those rights can be withheld, and to ensure that we have flexibility in decision making. Specifically, they enable the conclusive grounds decision to be made in the recovery period, while still providing for a minimum recovery period of 30 days, which is effectively 45 days in guidance. The second part makes clear our position that, in specific circumstances, as set out in clauses 61 and 62, we can withhold the recovery period and the protection from removal that it provides. Those changes allow us to respond to modern slavery as an evolving crime.
On Government amendments 72 and 76 to 83, which all relate to modern slavery specific temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery, the aim is to clarify our international obligations with regard to the provision of temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims. Government amendments 78 and 81 to 83 are minor technical drafting amendments that provide consistency with similar provisions on the statute book. Similarly, Government amendment 79 updates the wording of the clause to reflect amendment 56, which we considered yesterday.
Government amendments 76 and 77 remove the wording “social well-being” from subsection (2)(a) of clause 64 on the temporary leave to remain. That phrase was an over-broad concept that lacked clarity and left the eligibility criteria for a grant of leave under the clause unclear for victims and decision makers, which undermined the aim of the clause.
I reassure hon. Members that we remain in line with our international obligations. We will continue to support, via a grant of temporary leave to remain, those who have a need to be in the UK to recover from physical and psychological harm caused by their exploitation. In the same vein, Government amendment 72 amends the wording in clause 63 from “social well-being” to “social harm”. I reassure hon. Members that the clause will be underpinned by the immigration rules, which will provide more guidance on the issue for decision makers.
Government amendment 80 extends the current policy in the Bill that temporary leave will be provided where needs cannot be met in another country of which the individual is a national or citizen, another Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings signatory country, or any country with which we have an appropriate bilateral agreement. Decision makers will assess potential returns on a case-by-case basis following an individualised assessment in line with guidance and available country information.

Stuart McDonald: Will the Minister give way?

Rachel Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a huge amount to put on the record. I may take interventions later in my speech, but I have a number of things that I need to address.
I commend the Government amendments to the House and turn to the non-Government amendments. I will attempt to address the points of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). As I have said, the Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery. I will first turn to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and the organisations that she works with for meeting me. I commend her for her extensive work on this important point. I say again that we are committed to tackling all forms of modern slavery. We recognise the specific and horrific circumstances that victims of sexual exploitation have gone through. We believe that we have the right tools and a compassionate approach to those traumatised victims. Our people are fully trained to take a trauma-informed approach to advocate for them with compassion to help them to rebuild their lives and to reintegrate in their communities.
The hon. Member for Halifax referenced the issue of child victims of modern slavery. I repeat to her and other hon. Members who raised the issue that safeguards are built into the measures and that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis with appropriate levels of care. It is the clear duty of the Government to safeguard and protect child victims of that appalling exploitation.
The people who are dealing with those victims are professionals who will use their discretion and, again, a trauma-informed approach. They fully understand and appreciate the experience of those children—those vulnerable victims—and will ensure that they get the right support and approach to rebuild their lives. I have much more to say about all the work that we are doing with regard to that, victim navigators and independent child trafficking guardians, and some of the other work that we are doing across police forces, but I am afraid that time will not allow me to expand on those issues.
New clause 47, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and signed by several other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), relates to support and leave to remain for confirmed victims. It is clear that we share common aims of bringing the perpetrators of that horrendous crime to justice and of supporting victims to rebuild their lives.
I put on record my appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and many other hon. Members who have advocated for many years to ensure that we support the victims of that awful crime. A number of organisations, such as the Centre for Social Justice, have been instrumental in that; I want to continue to work with them. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that those victims of modern slavery have the support that they need to assist their recovery and the support that they need when they are engaging with the police and through the criminal justice process.
It is a priority to increase prosecutions of perpetrators of modern slavery. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is absolutely right that we do not want to see any victims in the system, which is why we are  making it clear for the first time that, where a public authority such as the police is pursuing an investigation, those victims who are co-operating and need to remain will be granted temporary leave to remain. Our legislation also makes it clear that leave will be granted where it is necessary to assist an individual in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm arising from the relevant exploitation or where it is necessary to seek compensation from their perpetrators. It is right that leave is granted to those who need it—that is firm but fair.
That is but one element of our work to strengthen the criminal justice response to modern slavery. Since 2016, we have invested £15 million to support the police’s response to modern slavery, led by the modern slavery and organised immigration crime programme. Through that programme, the Home Office has provided funding for specialist training for police victim liaison officers, who build trust with victims to facilitate engagement with the process using a victim-centred approach.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about the critical role that victim navigators play to help those traumatised individuals to engage with the system to ensure that we bring those despicable criminals to justice. To reflect the need for that specialist expertise, the Home Office funding provides a bespoke modern slavery intelligence hub with regional analysts, operational co-ordinators and improved training to support police forces and increase prosecutions. We are constantly ramping up that work so that we can best get to the source of those awful crimes.
I assure my right hon. Friend that all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. We will set out further details in relevant guidance.
I add a note of appreciation for the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who raised the issue of us all being aware of where modern slavery may be happening under our noses. I fully agree with those words and bring them to the attention of everybody in the House.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has given the commitment to 12 months, but there are other elements in the new clause. It is not my intention to press it to a vote but, if such amendments are not tabled in the other place, others will table an amendment and we will bring it back to this House for a vote.

Rachel Maclean: I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. We will of course watch the progress of the Bill through the other place with interest, and I am happy to work with him and any others as we do so.
Amendments 127 and 128, to which a number of Members have referred, seek to remove clauses 57 and 58 on the one-stop process as it relates to information relevant to modern slavery. These clauses are crucial to the Bill to enable us to appropriately identify victims at the earliest opportunity and make sure that they get support to rebuild their lives.
Finally, on new clause 39 and amendment 3, I appreciate the concerns about clause 62, but it is right that we should be able to withhold protection from serious criminals and those who pose a national security threat to the UK. I would like to reassure hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that our approach is not to have a blanket disqualification based on public order, but to take a case-by-case approach to decisions and consider the individual’s circumstances.
I would like to restate that our approach is to stamp out this evil and inhuman trade. The Bill is firm and fair, and it is in line with the overall objectives of our new plan for immigration. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will be content not to press their amendments.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby? This is not acceptable: this Division should have been concluded by now. There is a lot of business to be done this afternoon, and taking too long to vote is taking time out of the next item of business.
The House continued to divide.

Eleanor Laing: Order. There is an unacceptable delay in the Aye Lobby. It is simply wrong if people are taking too long to vote, deliberately obstructing the Tellers when coming through and remaining in the Lobby when there is no need for them to be remaining in the Lobby in order to stop other business taking place in this House this afternoon. That is unacceptable. There is deliberate action occurring in the Aye Lobby, and it is unacceptable.

The House having divided: Ayes 236, Noes 288.
Question accordingly negatived.
3.18 pm
More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 7 December).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Eleanor Laing: This Division will be conducted in a timely fashion. I will not have it obstructed deliberately.

New Clause 6 - Exemption for child victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking

(1) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information
notice on a person in respect of an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(2) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either of the positive reasonable grounds decisions related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(3) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where the positive reasonable grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(4) Sections 64(3) and 64(6) of this Act do not apply in cases where the positive conclusive grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.—[Holly Lynch.]
Brought up,
Question put, That the clause be added Bill.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate, once again, the delay in the Lobbies. This is an anti-democratic practice. It may not be obvious to the House, or to those who observe our proceedings, that the effect of delaying these Divisions is to deprive  the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary of the ability to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. That is unacceptable. It is right that this House should hear from the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary, and others on Third Reading. The delaying tactics, if one can use that term, that appear to be being used are unacceptable and contrary to good democratic practice.

David Davis: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Is it about the Division?

David Davis: It is.

Eleanor Laing: Then I can accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

David Davis: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the anti-democratic nature of the obstruction, is it possible to name the people who are causing it?

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. I am considering the answer. At present, I have no proof of the identity of those who are obstructing these Divisions. I will endeavour to obtain that information, and then I will consider what to do with it.

The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 293.
Question accordingly negatived.

Eleanor Laing: New clause 47 has been selected for a separate decision. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to move the new clause formally.

Iain Duncan Smith: Not moved.

Clause 58 - Late compliance with slavery or trafficking information notice: damage to credibility

Amendment proposed: 128, page 57, line 25, leave out clause 58.—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Serjeant at Arms please go and clear the Lobby?

David Linden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: Does the hon. Gentleman’s point of order relate to the Division?

David Linden: It does, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it is taking quite a lot of time to get through the votes, I wonder whether it might be possible to investigate the idea of introducing this thing called electronic voting, which would speed things up a little bit.

Eleanor Laing: If the hon. Gentleman had been behaving properly, I might have taken his point of order seriously. I have to say to him and to the House that a very serious piece of legislation is going through the House today. There has been genuine debate and disagreement about it, but it is legislation that will affect a lot of people in this country and it deserves to be properly considered. The antics that have been reported to me—the way in which certain Members have behaved, very obviously delaying and lengthening the time that the Divisions are taking—are, as I said a few moments ago, contrary to good democratic practice. I deplore the actions of those people who have delayed the Divisions, and who indeed are doing so now. Will they please cast their votes, come back into the Chamber and allow the Third Reading to take place?

The House having divided: Ayes 231, Noes 300.
Question accordingly negatived.

Stephen Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Eleanor Laing: I am not taking your point of order. Sit down—[Interruption.] Sit down! I am not taking any points of order—

Stephen Flynn: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Sit down! I am not taking a point of order. It would have to be about the Division that we have just had—[Interruption.] Sit down!

Clause 60 - Identified potential victims of slavery or human trafficking: recovery period

Amendments made: 64,page59,line1, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the requirement that there must be at least 30 days between the making of a positive reasonable grounds decision in relation to an identified potential victim of slavery or human trafficking and the making of a conclusive grounds decision.
Amendment 65,page59,line4, at beginning insert “Subject to section 62(2),”.
This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the prohibition on removal of an identified potential victim does not apply where they are disqualified from protection under clause 62 as a threat to public order or for having acted in bad faith.
Amendment 66,page59,line10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—
(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the identified potential victim;
(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64. It ensures that an identified potential victim is entitled to a recovery period (giving protection from removal) of at least 30 days even where a conclusive grounds decision is made within 30 days of the positive reasonable grounds decision.

Clause 61 - No entitlement to additional recovery period etc

Amendments made: 67,page59,line17, after “person” insert
“, in a case where the reasonable grounds for believing that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking arise from things done wholly before the first RG decision was made”.
This amendment corrects a drafting error in the definition of “further RG decision”.
Amendment 68,page59,line18, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 67.
Amendment 69,page59,line21, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
“(2) If the competent authority considers it appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case, the authority may determine that the person may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom during the period—
(a) beginning with the day on which the further RG decision is made, and
(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—
(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;
(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).
This is subject to section 62(2).”—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment removes the disapplication of a requirement to make a conclusive grounds decision following a “further RG decision” and instead provides that, although an identified potential victim is not automatically entitled to protection from removal following a further RG decision, the competent authority may decide that it is appropriate to give them that protection.

Clause 62 - Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection

Amendments made: 70,page60,line1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 64 and 69.
Amendment 71,page60,line4, at end insert “, and
(c) any requirement under section 64 to grant the person limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment provides that if an identified potential victim is disqualified from protection (on the grounds of public order or acting in bad faith) but goes on to receive a positive conclusive grounds decision, any requirement to grant them leave to remain in the United Kingdom that would otherwise arise under clause 64 ceases to apply.

Clause 63 - Identified potential victims etc in England and Wales: assistance and support

Amendments made: 72,page61,line28, leave out from “any” to “arising” in line 29 and insert
“physical, psychological or social harm”.
This amendment changes the reference to “social well-being” to “social harm” to follow more closely the language of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
Amendment 73,page61,line35, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69.
Amendment 74,page61,line43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—
(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;
(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.
Amendment 75,page61,line45, leave out subsection (5).—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 73.

Clause 64 - Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking

Amendments made: 78,page62,line23, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.
This amendment and Amendments 81 to 83 make minor drafting changes for consistency with related provisions on the statute book.
Amendment 76,page62,line26, after “any” insert “physical or psychological”.
This amendment removes assisting a victim of slavery or human trafficking in their recovery from harm to their social well-being from the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State is required to give a victim limited leave to remain the United Kingdom.
Amendment 77,page62,line27, leave out from “exploitation” to end of line 28.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 79,page62,line33, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to section 62(2).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 71.
Amendment 80,page63,line3, leave out “as” and insert
“which may be, but does not need to be, an agreement”.
This amendment makes it clear that a trafficking victim may be removed to a country which is not a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, if the UK has made an agreement with that country.
Amendment 81,page63,line9, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.
Amendment 82,page63,line11, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.
Amendment 83,page63,line12, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.—(Rachel Maclean.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.

Clause 81 - Extent

Amendment made: 84,page79,line4, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised so as to extend (with or without modification) to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.
(6) Those provisions are—
(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971,
(b) section 15(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993,
(c) section 13(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996,
(d) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997,
(e) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,
(f) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,
(g) section 338 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
(h) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004,
(i) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,
(j) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007,
(k) section 57(5) of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009,
(l) section 76(6) of the Immigration Act 2014,
(m) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015,
(n) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016, and
(o) section 8(2) of the Immigration and Social Security (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020”.—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment will enable the provisions of the Bill to be extended, by Order in Council, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Clause 82 - Commencement

Amendments made: 85,page79,line21, leave out “This Part and”.
This amendment, and Amendment 86, make minor drafting changes needed as a result of Amendment 87.
Amendment 86,page79,line25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) this Part.”
See statement for Amendment 85.
Amendment 87,page79,line26, at end insert—
“(3A) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making (and, where required, consulting on) regulations—
(a) section 13 (requirement to make asylum claim at “designated place”);
(b) section 26 (accelerated detained appeals);
(c) section 41 and Schedule 4 (penalty for failure to secure goods vehicle etc);
(d) section 42 (working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and entry);
(e) section 49 (persons subject to immigration control: referral or age assessment by local authority);
(f) section 51 (regulations about use of scientific methods in age assessments);
(g) section 52 (regulations about age assessments);
(h) section 68 (interpretation of Part 5);
(i) section 77 (pre-consolidation amendments of immigration legislation).”
This amendment brings powers in the Bill to make regulations into force on Royal Assent, so that the regulations can be prepared in advance of the substantive provisions being commenced. The regulations themselves will not be commenced for at least two months after Royal Assent.
Amendment 88,page79,line38, leave out paragraph (g).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 89,page79,line42, leave out paragraphs (j) and (k).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 90,page80,line3, leave out paragraph (n).—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Third Reading

Priti Patel: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I echo your remarks—

Stephen Flynn: On a point of order—

Eleanor Laing: Order. No points of order!

Priti Patel: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo your remarks—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. If the hon. Gentleman rises again, I will require him to leave the Chamber.

Priti Patel: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is appalling that we have seen these delaying tactics today.
This Bill introduces the most significant overhaul of our asylum system in over two decades, and it is a shame that Members of this House have brought in these delaying tactics today to prevent this debate. Our Bill will bring in a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term plan that seeks to address the challenge of illegal migration head on. Illegal immigration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery.

Lee Anderson: I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that this is the most important piece of legislation to be passed since I was elected in 2019. Does she also agree that the disgraceful tactic of hiding in the toilets used by the rabble opposite to delay democracy is an attack on democracy? You should be ashamed, the lot of you!

Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Eleanor Laing: Order. We will now hear the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary.

Priti Patel: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not give way further, so that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) can have some time. The Back Benchers have debated this Bill already.

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: No I will not, because I want to give the right hon. Lady a chance to speak in the debate and quite frankly, other Members on the Opposition Benches have already delayed the debate.
Illegal immigration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery. Illegal migration is counter to our national interests, because those criminal gangs and networks are also responsible for other illicit activity including those involving drugs, firearms and serious violence. If left unchecked, it is a risk to our country and our national interests. Illegal migration is counter to our moral interests, because it means that people are put into the hands of ruthless criminals, which we want to stop because it endangers lives. By facilitating illegal entry via unsafe means such as boats, lorries and sealed shipping containers—

Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?

Priti Patel: I will not give way, because I want to leave some time for the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. The hon. Gentleman would have had time to contribute from the Back Benches during the debate on Report.
Families and young children have lost their lives at sea and in lorries and containers because they put their trust in the people traffickers. The challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom, but we as a Government are seeking to address these issues in a responsible way, because they have been neglected for far too long. Let us not forget that the British public are angered by what they see. The British people are fair and generous when it comes to helping those in need—[Interruption.]
If I may, hon. Members have had hours to debate this Bill. They are screaming and using delaying tactics because they lack the solutions to these problems, and we are going to put fundamental reforms into statute.
The reality is that the system is broken. It has been open to gaming and criminal exploitation, and we are compelled to act with the simple principle of fairness. We are the only Government who will bring forward a balanced Bill. We are bringing forward a legislative framework that is firm and fair, prioritising those in genuine need. We will have powers to stop illegal entry  and to break the business model of the evil people smugglers, who will face life in prison, which is something all Opposition Members have opposed completely.
We will bring in tough new sentences—maximum life sentences—for people smugglers and facilitators. There will be new rules to stop unscrupulous people posing as children, and there will be stronger enforcement powers for Border Force. Importantly, those who travel through a safe country should claim asylum in that safe country, rather than asylum shopping in the way we see right now.

David Linden: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Sit down. The Home Secretary does not have time to take interventions, neither will the shadow Home Secretary, because time has been wasted by the Members on the SNP Benches. Stay in your seat.

Priti Patel: They do not like hearing the fact that this Government will seek to rapidly remove those with no legal right to be in the UK. We are establishing a fast-track appeal process and streamlining the appeal system, making it quicker to remove failed asylum seekers and dangerous foreign criminals, the very people they would like to keep in this country. We will tackle the practice of meritless last-minute claims and appeals that clog up the courts, which is a fundamental unfairness that, by the way, even the legal profession says has been frustrating it for too long because the justice system has been gamed. We will protect the rights of modern-day slavery victims, too.
On that basis, we will bring in a fundamental change. The Opposition have had a chance to back the Bill, and they have chosen not to back the Bill. They want open borders, and they would encourage more people smuggling and more dangerous crossings that would compromise our national interest and our public safety. Our opponents have no answers to this Bill, and we are the ones who want to control illegal migration. We want to take back control of our borders. Many Opposition Members have written letters opposing the deportation of murderers and rapists. [Interruption.] They can say they have not, but they have.
This Bill will bring in fundamental reform, and I commend it to the House.

Yvette Cooper: Unfortunately, what we have just had is a lot of rhetoric and slogans, not solutions, on such a serious issue. Two years ago, the Home Secretary promised she had a plan to halve within three months the number of boats crossing the channel. Instead, the number has gone up tenfold since then, as criminal gangs have switched to using flimsy boats instead. She said she was confident that her plan would lead to a considerable reduction in illegal activity. Instead, those smugglers and traffickers are making more and more profit as lives are being lost.
Far from cracking down on the criminal gangs and the smugglers, this Bill makes things worse. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and former top police chief, Sara Thornton, has warned the Government repeatedly  that the policies in this Bill will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups. I can tell the Home Secretary that the Labour party will not support letting vile people traffickers and criminal gangs off the hook in the way that she is prepared to do.
In November, 27 people died in the cold English channel. We need solutions and co-operation to try to tackle the smuggler gangs who are making a profit from people losing their lives. We need the safe and legal routes that the Home Secretary has promised and not delivered. The Afghan soldier who worked with our armed forces and arrived by boat with his family just a few weeks ago to claim asylum should never have ended up in a dinghy on the channel. The security co-operation just is not happening. The Home Secretary has failed to go to the heart of the criminal gangs’ business model, which is all around social media, and she has failed to back the measures that we proposed yesterday.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 231.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Opposition Day - [7th Allotted Day, Second Part]Opposition Day

Rail Investment and Integrated  Rail Plan

Louise Haigh: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the importance of rail investment to the UK economy and, in particular, the delivery of new lines linking Yorkshire, the North West, North East and Midlands; regrets the Government’s decision not to deliver new high speed investment, Northern Powerhouse Rail in full, and electrification covering communities across the North and Midlands; calls on the Government to deliver the new northern rail investment promised by the Prime Minister in full; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to update the House in person before January 2022 on his Department’s benefit cost ratio analysis for the revised HS2 line.
The motion stands in my name and the names of the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. and right hon. Friends.
It is a great privilege to speak for the first time as the shadow Transport Secretary of State. This sector is absolutely central to regenerating our communities, decarbonising the economy, and connecting people across our country. It is the one area of Government where, every day, every person in this country relies on the Government to get this right. I look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that every corner of this country gets the transport system that it deserves.
Days after the Prime Minister came to power he said with absolute clarity to communities across the north:
“I want to be the Prime Minister who does with Northern Powerhouse Rail what we did for Crossrail in London. And today I am going to deliver on my commitment…with a pledge to fund the Leeds to Manchester route.”
No fewer than 60 times, the Conservative Government committed to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. Conservative Members stood on a manifesto to deliver it—and the eastern leg of HS2—in three consecutive elections. Just two months ago, at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister said it all again. I imagine that Conservative Members are feeling pretty ashamed of their Government today, and I imagine that they have been sent out with lines to take to buoy them up and spin the IRP for their party. Before they do, I would like them to reflect on the importance of honesty with the public and of promises made, and the implications that breaking those promises have for trust in this place and in our democratic institutions, particularly promises made to communities that have been underinvested in for too long. I would like them to reflect on exactly why the plan before us goes nowhere near delivering what was committed time and again to the north and the midlands.

Jacob Young: Of course the hon. Lady will be aware that the Leader of the Opposition called multiple times for HS2 to be scrapped. In the spirit of honesty and of honouring promises, will she tell us whether he has done a U-turn on that?

Louise Haigh: I could have written these lines for them myself!
The Leader of the Opposition, like many Members across this House, had concerns with particular issues around particular stations and particular routes. As a Member for Sheffield, I can say that we have had that debate many times over the past few years. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor have been absolutely clear that, if we were in government now, we would be committed to getting on with delivering HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail in full.
Let us be totally clear about what those commitments meant. The benefits of HS2 being extended from Birmingham to Leeds, and of a new, high-speed line between Leeds and Manchester, would be to get those fast, long-distance trains off the existing infrastructure and to free up capacity for local services and freight.

Stephanie Peacock: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The people of Barnsley have to rely on overcrowded, overpriced and often delayed trains. Does she agree that the Government’s shameful decision to U-turn on investment in the north will only make local services worse?

Louise Haigh: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s powerful point. This is not the local transport revolution that was promised to the people of the north and midlands. In fact, what is now before us is not only less than what was promised, but could deliver a poorer service for many of our towns, cities and communities than the already unacceptable service that they currently have.

Alexander Stafford: Will the hon. Lady make it explicitly clear: if Labour was in power, would it build the 2b arm of HS2 that would go through Rother Valley?

Louise Haigh: Yes, I just said that.

Dawn Butler: They are not listening on the Government Benches, are they? All the Government are good for is breaking promises to the north, but not only have they broken promises to the north, they have now told London that it has to manage a decline and that investing in London would mean a loss of 43,000 jobs in the north. All this Government do is break promises and not invest in our infrastructure.

Louise Haigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. London colleagues will be battling with the Government in the next three days over promises that were made to Londoners about TfL funding, on which they are again engaging in that brinkmanship.

Hilary Benn: Does my hon. Friend share the frustration of so many people in Leeds and Yorkshire that, after 11 years of planning and working hard, the Government cancel the eastern leg and the integrated rail plan says:
“We will look at the most effective way to run HS2 trains to Leeds”?
We do not have to look very far; there was a plan, which the Government have reneged on.

Louise Haigh: Absolutely. I am afraid, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, that the IRP is full of nonsense like that.
The economic case for delivering the original plans as promised could hardly be stronger. Both schemes would have created more than 150,000 new jobs, connecting 13 million people in major towns and cities in our industrial heartlands. Without that eastern leg of HS2, the business case barely makes sense. In the middle of a climate emergency, when we know that we need to double rail capacity in order for the Government to meet their own net zero target, the decision makes even less sense. This was a once-in-a-generation chance to transform opportunity across the whole country, rebalance the economy and level up, but last month the Government tore their promises up.

Vicky Foxcroft: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and she is absolutely right—the Government talk about levelling up, but they are looking to level down in London. If the Government refuse to give TfL the funding that it needs, one in five bus routes, on which disabled Londoners rely, will be cut, and there will be no new step-free access schemes. This is not levelling up, but seeking to level down London. Do we not want to ensure that transport is accessible for all, especially disabled people?

Louise Haigh: I could not agree more.
The Transport Secretary said in this House that
“the eastern leg is called the 2b, and, as the Prime Minister has said from this Dispatch Box, it is not a question of ‘to be or not to be’”—[Official Report, 22 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1221.]
Well, he was absolutely right; it was simply a question of not to be. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, Hamlet went on to say,
“Be all my sins remember’d”.
None of us needs reminding of the Prime Minister’s sins: he promised HS2 to Leeds; he promised Northern Powerhouse Rail in full; he promised that the north would not be forgotten, but delivered less than half the investment that it demanded; the planned Leamside line and a station upgrade at Middlesbrough—scrapped; the planned electrification of Selby to Hull gone too; the new station at Bradford, one of the fastest growing cities in the country—abandoned; and the people of Chesterfield, Sheffield and Leeds no longer connected by HS2.

Imran Hussain: By scrapping Northern Powerhouse Rail and in particular the station in Bradford city centre, the Government have condemned another generation of Bradfordians to a low-growth, low-wage economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot trust a word that comes out of this Prime Minister’s mouth?

Louise Haigh: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The people of Bradford are rightly furious about this decision.

Lilian Greenwood: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful argument. Does she agree that it is not surprising that the Government are reneging on their promises on the HS2 eastern leg because they did precisely the same thing with regard to electrification of the midland mainline, which was promised  by 2015, promised by 2017 and promised by 2019, and we will now be incredibly lucky if it is even delivered by 2034?

Louise Haigh: This is exactly the problem. The problem that Ministers have is whether we can even trust what is being promised in this plan.
In this country we measure infrastructure investment not in months but in years and in decades. When the Victorians laid the foundations for our modern railway, it was a vote of confidence in our future. The integrated rail plan was the Government’s chance to build a railway fit for the century to come that would help us to tackle the climate crisis, but when the north came to cash its cheque, it bounced. At the heart of these broken promises are the missed opportunities for investment, for growth and for business. The OECD could not have been clearer when it said that investment in regional transport drives growth. Northern Powerhouse Rail could have increased productivity by 6%—a £22 billion boost to the northern economy. That opportunity has been squandered.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend talks about missed opportunities. I can tell her of one big disappointment to residents in Greater Manchester, and that is the shaving of £4 billion off the cost for increasing capacity through Manchester city centre. We were promised a high-speed underground station. That is now not happening. We will end up with a sanitised version of trains on stilts that will completely halt the regeneration of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister’s constituency.

Louise Haigh: This was about capacity, and it was about promises made that have been broken. Frankly, this plan is simply not future-proof.
I cannot imagine that the Treasury is happy. The business case for HS2 without the eastern leg no longer represents value for money. I imagine that many of those in the home counties will be wondering why their lives have been turned upside down for a project that would not even have been started under Treasury rules if it was not going all the way to Leeds. People across this country were told this would level up the north and provide a significant return on investment, but now it is doing neither.
The difficult truth for Ministers is this: if they can openly, clearly and publicly deceive people in our proud regions, why on earth should we believe anything else contained in this plan? As we saw crystal clear last night in the leaked video from No. 10, their bare-faced, brazen and shameless dishonesty is catching up with them. If No. 10 can laugh and lie about a party it held when lives were literally on the line, does that not that prove that the one thing we know for certain about this Government is that you cannot believe a single word they say? Given this record, can the Conservative Members lined up today to do the bidding of their Government really be confident that even the paltry plan they stand up to defend will ever be delivered?
The nonsense contained in the integrated rail plan that these plans will somehow be better for communities such as Peterborough, Wakefield or Newark is just that—nonsense. Failing to build new lines will put more fast, longer-distance trains on existing infrastructure and will crowd out local services. The Secretary of State  needs to be honest with his colleagues in Broxtowe, Dewsbury and Bolsover about the level of disruption that they can expect to experience over the next decade, with the cancelled trains and longer journeys while their lines are being upgraded, and whether, at the end—if, of course, this work is ever done—they will have more services, more capacity or less than they currently enjoy.

Jamie Wallis: Will the hon. Lady be equally vociferous with her colleagues in the Senedd? The devolved rail lines in Wales were recently rated the worst in the United Kingdom, and the Welsh Government continue to insist on not building the M4 relief road, so there will be longer journeys. Will she talk to her colleagues in the Senedd about those points?

Ruth Cadbury: rose—

Louise Haigh: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Ruth Cadbury: I thank my hon. Friend for the very powerful speech she is making and congratulate her on her new role. Does she agree that as well as squandering the opportunity to provide jobs and regenerate so many communities in the north, this plan squanders the opportunity to take freight and cars off the road, which would reduce congestion and pollution and increase journey speeds for those who need to be on the road?

Louise Haigh: That is exactly the point, and it was the point of the original plans for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. The hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) understand that. They understand what it means to scale back NPR. They have described the decision as hugely and bitterly disappointing.

Robbie Moore: The hon. Lady mentions electrification, but does she recognise that in 13 years of Labour Government, they only electrified 63 miles, which is the equivalent of 4.8 miles a year?

Louise Haigh: This Government have been in power for 11 years. What have they done for the people of his constituency? He has described it as “utterly disappointing”.

Matt Rodda: I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend in the points she makes about how this Government have let down the north, London and other parts of the country. The electrification programme is a prime example. Electrification stops before it even gets to most of south Wales. It stops in Newbury in my region. Does she agree that there should be far greater investment in this important part of modernising our railway?

Louise Haigh: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Fundamentally the problem is that the integrated rail plan misunderstood the intention and benefits of High Speed 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. It was about freeing up fast, long-distance trains from the existing network and enabling more capacity for local services and rail freight. As a result, we have a set of proposals that will not deliver anything like what was promised for the north and the midlands.
This scaling back is a massive double whammy for our regions. The worst part is that the communities that will feel the brunt of years of broken promises, empty words and inaction are, at the same time, being squeezed the hardest by the Conservatives’ tax hikes and rising bills, while those with the broadest shoulders remain largely untouched. Those same working people will likely face a record increase in rail fares next year. They will be paying more than 50% more to get to work than a decade ago, relying on an unreliable and overcrowded system.
Tonight, Conservative MPs face a very simple choice. Will they stand by the pledge they made to their constituents at election time—a pledge that their Government repeated 60 times? Will they vote for the investment they were elected to office to deliver? With trust in politics so low, will they now do the right thing? This great rail betrayal will hit millions of people—their constituents—and leave the north and the midlands in the slow lane for decades to come. Tonight, Tory MPs can join with Labour and right this wrong. They have a chance to stand up for their communities. If they vote against this Opposition motion tonight, their electorate will know where they stand, will know they cannot be trusted and rightly will not forgive them.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the Secretary of State, I note that clearly very many colleagues want to contribute to this debate. There will be a time limit from the beginning, and it is likely to be four minutes, but I will confirm that after the Secretary of State has spoken.

Grant Shapps: Before I begin, I first welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) to her place and congratulate her. She will be the third shadow Transport Secretary I have faced across this Dispatch Box, and I wish her all the luck of the previous two.
We were elected as a reforming Government. We have undertaken the biggest ever review of the industry and published the Williams-Shapps plan, creating a new public body in Great British Railways, with an overwhelming aim to deliver trains on time for passengers. We began by reversing the Beeching cuts, restoring lines to communities that were cut off from the railway in the 1960s and 1970s. We have set out our integrated rail plan, a £96 billion programme to reshape our railways in the north and the midlands. It is the largest single rail investment ever made by any UK Government.

Toby Perkins: The Secretary of State described this as a reforming Government, but what they are reforming is their manifesto after they have been elected on it. People in Chesterfield and across north Derbyshire were promised HS2, which would increase capacity. Instead, what we have got are slower services and years and years of delays while the reforms happen.

Grant Shapps: Our manifesto talks about the Oakervee review. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency of Chesterfield will be served by a new line to the east midlands completing the electrification of the midland main line, which I will come on to shortly.
Our reforming vision marks a new era of investment and growth. The integrated rail plan starts to provide benefits to passengers and communities quickly, rather than leaving it for two decades as previously planned. We will boost eight of the 10 busiest rail corridors across the north and the midlands. We will speed up journeys, increase capacity and run more frequent services, and we will do all that much earlier than previously planned.

Ruth Cadbury: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that upgrading existing lines is far more disruptive for the existing passengers of those lines than building new lines? Will he retract the statement that he made on the radio on the day he released the plan when he seemed more worried about car drivers on the M1 being upset by potential works on the new high speed link than about passengers on the existing rail network who will suffer years and years of disruption?

Grant Shapps: As I will come to shortly, it is not just about upgrading lines or building one or two high speed lines; it is about three new high speed lines and £96 billion of investment overall. Rather than focusing purely on inter-city connections, we will also strengthen regional rail lines in a way that economically benefits the midlands and the north the most and tie them into the main network. It is one integrated solution that delivers a better, faster, more efficient and more affordable railway than the outdated blueprint from 2019.

Jacob Young: On economic benefits, one of the best economic benefits that the IRP can provide to Redcar is using British steel in the construction of all new rail lines, so I ask the Secretary of State to commit to doing that.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. So far, some 97% of contracts for HS2 have gone to British-registered firms, and he is right to encourage them to come to his area.

Andy McDonald: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I will make some progress.
You could be forgiven for thinking, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we had abandoned all those plans if you listened to the Opposition, and I would not for one moment want them to mislead the House—albeit inadvertently, I am sure—on what we are doing. As I mentioned, we are not just building one high speed line from Crewe to Manchester; we are building a second high speed line from Warrington to Manchester to west Yorkshire, slashing journey times across the north, and a third high speed line from Birmingham to the east midlands with HS2 trains continuing to central Nottingham, central Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield on an upgraded and electrified midland main line. Just one of those might be regarded as a major achievement for any Government, particularly given the economic shock of the last two years, but we are doing all three.

Lilian Greenwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, the high speed line joins the midland main line at East Midlands Parkway and does  not go any further north, thus depriving Nottingham and all the cities of the east midlands of the improved connectivity and faster journey times to Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and Scotland? Is that not precisely why my constituents are so angry about his broken promises?

Grant Shapps: It is absolutely extraordinary: the hon. Lady’s constituents in Nottingham were not going to be served by the HS2 line that was going to be built, so they were not going to get the additional journey times or the improvements, and now they will. I suggest that it is important not to mislead her constituents—[Interruption.] inadvertently, I should say, perhaps through not having read the details of the IRP—with regard to the many advantages that they will now get. As I was about to say, the journey time from Birmingham to Nottingham will be cut from an hour and a quarter to just 26 minutes through the new plan, so it is far better for her constituents. We will reduce rail journey time between London and Derby from almost an hour and a half to just under an hour, and in Leeds we are going to invest £100 million to look at how we can best take the HS2 trains through to the city, as well as to start work on a west Yorkshire mass transit system, which is something successive Governments have failed to do.
I must say I am slightly surprised by the disappointment of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. I would urge all those who listened to her speech today to study the actual details of the plan, because it is producing benefits not only for the midlands and the north years ahead of what was planned, but for her own Sheffield constituency. She will want to hear the benefits for her Sheffield constituency. I know from her previous work that she was diligent and worked very hard campaigning to get that electrification done, so let us give her constituents some of the facts about what this new plan brings. The midland main line will be electrified to Sheffield, which is something she has been calling for—she has been calling for it—and the upgrade of the Hope Valley line between Manchester and Sheffield will be completed. HS2 trains will reach Sheffield and—get this—the journey from Sheffield to London will be half an hour quicker.
I have a suggestion for how the hon. Lady can use the extra half an hour she will have gained. I think she could spend half an hour speaking to her party leader and convincing him of the case for HS2. She might have her work cut out, though. This, after all, is the man who called for HS2 to be cancelled, and he even voted against his own party’s instructions—defying a three-line Whip—to try to stop the thing she says she is now campaigning for. I have no doubt about her own convictions on the need for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, and she has been consistent in calling for the electrification of the midland main line, but I do wonder if she knows her own leader’s views on that project. Recently, he called the electrification of the midland main line “complete nonsense”. As usual, we are looking at a Labour party riddled with divisions and too busy arguing with itself—and that is just the Leader of the Opposition. Meanwhile, we are getting on with delivering, as promised, better, faster and more reliable trains, and they are going to get there sooner as well.

Jonathan Edwards: As the Secretary of State knows, for some bizarre reason HS2 was deemed to be an England and Wales project, resulting in no Barnett consequentials for Wales.  All the projects he has announced in his speech today are clearly England-only projects, so can he confirm that they will result in full Barnett consequentials for Wales?

Grant Shapps: The plan actually provides significant benefits to north Wales. Studies have been done about the tens of millions of pounds of additional benefit that HS2 will bring to north Wales in particular, and of course there is the Union connectivity review, recently launched by Sir Peter Hendy, which brings yet more benefit as well.

Geraint Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I will make a bit of progress.
For anyone who claims we are failing to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, I want to set the record straight. Northern Powerhouse Rail is going ahead. It is going to bring faster services, there will be big capacity increases, and it is going to do this in the most logical and efficient way. [Interruption.] There are those—and I hear the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell)—who say all we are doing is electrifying the trans-Pennine route. That is wrong. We are actually investing £23 billion to build Northern Powerhouse Rail and unlock east-west travel across the north of England. [Interruption.] Yes, we are. Trains from Leeds will reach Manchester in just 33 minutes, cutting journey times almost in half. Seating capacity between Leeds and Liverpool will more than treble as a result of the integrated rail plan, and the journey between Leeds and Bradford will take just 12 minutes.

Helen Hayes: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, while he is letting down passengers across the north and the midlands, he is also letting down passengers in London? Can he confirm what conversations he has had with his colleagues in the north of England about the 43,000 jobs that will be put at risk if he does not agree further emergency funding for Transport for London? Can he say why he is neglecting our transport system in London three days from the current emergency funding running out?

Grant Shapps: At the risk of straying outside the bounds of the debate, I have already paid £4.1 billion to TfL to ensure the services can carry on running. I hope that, as a London MP, the hon. Lady will have a word with the Mayor of London and ask him where the plan he should have sent to us on 18 November is, because that is what is preventing a further settlement to a system we have of course always said we will support.

Mike Amesbury: rose—

Grant Shapps: I will make a little further progress.
“Ah,” some say, “But this was never the plan for Northern Powerhouse Rail.” That is basically their argument—“This is a good plan, but it’s not the plan that was in place”—but, again, that is wrong. In fact, we are using part of the existing route, which was always one of the options for Northern Powerhouse Rail so it is not something we have just created. But this is not, of course, just about that £23 billion for the east-west rail: Northern Powerhouse Rail will cut 20 minutes off journey times between Leeds and London, with a £3.5 billion  package of work to upgrade the east coast main line, benefiting many other destinations including Darlington and Newcastle, and north to Scotland as well.
I have heard many comments about this plan in the last few weeks, it has to be said. The Leader of the Opposition cried “betrayal”, the shadow Chancellor said it was “shameful”, and the former shadow Transport Secretary the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) described £96 billion as “crumbs off the table”. We really do have to worry about a party that thinks that £96 billion equates to “crumbs”.
In reality, of course, the integrated rail plan is the biggest ever single Government investment in a rail network, five times more than the amount spent on Crossrail and 10 times more than was spent of the Olympics. I cannot help but detect the hand of politics in the Opposition’s reaction, but while they criticise and politicise, their constituents will start to see the benefits. They will ride on faster trains, sit in more comfortable carriages and not have to fight for a seat. Perhaps that is why the Labour Mayor of Manchester said the plans bring “significant benefits”, or the Labour Mayor of Doncaster welcomed the
“significant further investment in the East Coast Main Line”
or—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Grant Shapps: I will give way in a moment, but I think Labour Members will want to hear this. Perhaps it is why the Labour leader of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council said that the IRP was a “victory for common sense”.
Of course it is common sense. We have not just stuck to the original plans which would have spent an extra £18 billion. And what for—what would it have given the Labour party to include that extra £18 billion? It would have given 15 years of delays and just four minutes off the journey between Manchester and Leeds.

Paula Barker: The Secretary of State talked about leaders and the quotes. I want to touch on the quote of the Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotherham. He said that the penny-pinchers at the Treasury have won the day to roll out a “cheap and nasty option”. Isn’t that the case?

Grant Shapps: It is an extraordinary idea that £96 billion is “cheap and nasty”, but maybe this is a question of language. Those in Liverpool should know that the current journey time from London to Liverpool is 132 minutes and that will be slashed to just 92 minutes—“cheap and nasty”, but 92 minutes.
The common-sense approach we have taken delivers a plan that under the original plan would have been years and years in the making—until well after many of us had stopped serving in this House. This plan benefits smaller towns and cities, which would have been ignored under the plans Labour still backs. The smaller towns and cities would have seen no improvements at all; in fact, in many cases they would have seen deteriorating services, and let us face it, these problems have been known about for years.

Alexander Stafford: My right hon. Friend is completely right: the smaller towns and villages will benefit from this plan, not least Bramley, Wales and Aston in Rother  Valley because HS2 was going to bulldoze through them, destroying 400 homes. However, there is still safeguarding around the route, so can the Secretary of State update us on when that will be lifted so that people in Rother Valley can get on with their lives?

Grant Shapps: We will of course continue to keep the matter under review, but as my hon. Friend knows £100 million is going to west Yorkshire and Leeds to see the best way of getting HS2 trains to Leeds so I ask him to be a little more patient on that front.
However, he is absolutely right to mention the smaller towns and cities that the Labour party seems to have largely forgotten about. The existing plan would have seen deteriorating services. We intend to revise the plan, because as far back as 2014 it was recognised that the existing plan would
“deliver maximum disruption and minimal benefit.”
Those are not my words about the plan that Labour is proposing, but those of the now Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham.

Kieran Mullan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour’s pledge on this can be added to its very long list of totally uncosted spending commitments that it expects the British taxpayer to pick up? It has no way of paying for it.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, Crewe is going to get a fantastic service, with a wonderful delivery, as is Manchester. I was just talking about the Manchester Mayor.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but he knows and I know that his predecessors committed to the full delivery of HS2. That was the way that the full economic benefits would be delivered. He talks about smaller towns. They are the ones that would directly benefit from a fully funded HS2, which would not only get people off the roads and away from aviation on to rail, but release capacity across the entire network. He knows that to be true. This is a shortfall. It pulls the rug from under his own plans and those of his predecessors. Is that not the case?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Member knows a lot about this subject from our time sparring across the Dispatch Boxes and, representing Middlesbrough as he does, he knows that he is going to get a direct train from London to Middlesbrough. That is a major achievement, and I am proud that this Government were able to give his constituents that service.
I was talking about the Mayor of Greater Manchester and what he said—I could not agree more—about sticking to that original plan through thick and thin. It did not deliver what was required. Instead, our new plans mean that the great northern infrastructure projects are going to be linked up locally, regionally and nationally.

Lucy Powell: That is not what he said.

Grant Shapps: I am challenged that that is not what he said, but I have the quote. He said that the original plan would
“deliver maximum disruption and minimal benefit.”
In fact, he was campaigning against HS2 going north of Birmingham until Northern Powerhouse Rail was built.
Many towns and villages that would not have benefited originally will now benefit from this approach. Labour Members need to explain to people in places such as Kettering, Leicester, Loughborough, Doncaster, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Dewsbury, Huddersfield and Wakefield why they want to take away from them the services that our integrated rail plan will deliver.
Mayor Burnham had more to say on the subject. Just last year he claimed that the 2040s were far too long to wait for high-speed rail in the north. Perhaps that is why he was prepared to sacrifice HS2 north of Birmingham to focus exclusively on Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Toby Perkins: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I want to get to the end and let others come in.
This Government are not going for either/or, as the Mayor of Manchester tried to persuade us to; we are going to deliver both—high-speed trains up to Leeds while building a brand-new high-speed line east-west between Liverpool, Manchester and West Yorkshire, with a total of 110 miles of new high-speed line and 180 miles of newly electrified line, all of it in the midlands and  the north.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I am going to finish so that other Members have the opportunity to come in.
In the last 11 years, we have electrified 1,221 miles of track. In 13 years, how many miles did the Labour party electrify? I will tell Members the answer: 63 miles. It is extraordinary. The Opposition want us to believe their plan for rail when they managed 63 miles. Previous plans would have cost the taxpayer twice as much. They would have ignored the very towns and communities that need to be levelled up.
Madam Deputy Speaker, £96 billion is an immense investment. Every single pound will go to boosting our network, not in 10 or 15 years’ time—no, we want to get this work under way immediately. The integrated rail plan represents the biggest upgrade to rail services in the north and the midlands since the arrival of rail 200 years ago—not just improving journeys but spreading opportunity and, yes, levelling up our country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. After the next speaker, there will be a four-minute time limit.

Gavin Newlands: I, too, welcome the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) to her post and wish her well. No doubt we will chat soon about the role.
Those of us with long experience of the UK Government’s trail of broken promises and inaction knew that this day was likely to come. The minute the  High Speed 2 Bills in this place were split by phases, it was clear that the Government were preparing the ground for cancellation once the political cover of promised HS2 to the north was no longer required. The idea of a rail strategy coming from the Department for Transport is a bad joke. In recent months, my office, and indeed my house, has accumulated a colourful collection of glossy DFT booklets and reports—a substitute for genuine action and construction. What with the Williams-Shapps plan, the integrated rail plan, the net zero strategy,  the Union connectivity review and the transport decarbonisation plan, to name but a few, the Department is at least keeping graphic designers in work, and will no doubt keep fact checkers busy for months and years to come.
If hon. Members want to see real ambition and forward thinking, they should look across the North sea to Denmark—do not worry; I will come to Scotland. Denmark has managed to construct an 8 km bridge and a 4 km tunnel linking it with Sweden—a real bridge and a real tunnel, by the way, not a back-of-a-fag-packet scheme with roundabouts under the Isle of Man, dreamed up by the Prime Minister while he organised secret Santas. [Interruption.] I will come to it; don’t you worry, Secretary of State. Denmark’s fixed link with Sweden includes a high-speed rail link between the countries. For the foreseeable future, there will be more high-speed rail over and under an inlet of the Baltic sea than over a single inch of the north of England.
Now the Danes are building a fixed link to Germany —the project is financed and run by the Danish Government—while also building high-speed rail links joining the rest of the country. In fact, on current plans, Denmark, which takes up a third of the area that England does, will have more high-speed track in use than England by the end of next year, and it will continue to pull miles and miles ahead.
The Danish authorities are showing more vision and commitment to the nation’s transport infrastructure than their counterparts in the DFT. In Denmark, connecting neighbours is not a wheeze dreamt up by the Prime Minister, with no basis in reality; it is part of a sustained, long-term strategy to truly level up. I cannot imagine the Danish transport authorities planning a bridge or tunnel over a munitions and radioactive waste dump. They live in the real world, where they are building real infrastructure and real connections. This is a small, independent, northern European country taking bold and radical steps to improve connectivity with its neighbours, to push towards decarbonisation, and to boost its economy and that of its neighbours.
Contrast that with the Union connectivity review, where, despite the Scottish Government wanting meaningful engagement on a raft of issues, the UK Government simply ploughed ahead and ignored them.

Mike Amesbury: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Newlands: I will give way once, but I see that a number of Members want to speak in the debate, and this is a devolved issue.

Mike Amesbury: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his powerful contribution. In May, a station in my patch, Northwich, collapsed. It still has not been rebuilt. People who are disabled or have mobility  problems cannot travel in one of the directions, yet the Government have so far refused to build back better, fairer and in an inclusive way. Does he concur that that is the reality on the ground in many parts of the UK, including the north of England?

Gavin Newlands: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have not been to his part of the country yet, but I am sure that I will make plans to shortly. I have no doubt about what he says, and I am entirely unsurprised by it. I am sure—or at least I hope—that the Secretary of State was listening to what he said.

Chris Loder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Newlands: I apologise to my Transport Committee colleague, but I promised to try to keep my contribution under 10 minutes because of the number of Members who want to contribute. [Interruption.] It is a devolved matter.
It is the usual pattern for Downing Street. Don’t like something? Ignore or marginalise it. Transport for the North speaking up for a real rail network, and against the Government’s plans? Neuter it out of any real existence. Afraid that the Welsh Government might use Barnett consequentials from HS2 spending in a way that shows up the paucity of ambition on the other side of the border? Just do not give them any. Worried that the Scottish Government will come to some different conclusions about what is needed for real connectivity across these isles? Just ignore them when they look for real engagement. And, dare I say it, do not like the rules about Christmas parties during a pandemic? Organise that secret Santa anyway.
To be crystal clear, the Minister, in his summing up, must confirm that Scotland and Wales will receive full Barnett consequentials from the English rail plan and confirm the level of consequentials and the timing, because the transfer of the funds simply cannot be punted down the track. Everyone on these isles would benefit from improved connectivity internally and externally, but instead of working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations, Mayors and combined authorities in England, once again Whitehall knows best, and Whitehall, as ever, knows London best.

Chris Loder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Newlands: I will give way once to the hon. Gentleman because he is persistent.

Chris Loder: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way and it is always a pleasure to serve with him on the Transport Committee. In the interests of collaboration, which he just mentioned, would he care to share with the House why, during the Union connectivity review, the Scottish Government refused engagement on this issue from the United Kingdom Government to achieve that very point?

Gavin Newlands: As I have outlined, that is not true. We asked for engagement on a number of issues and those advances were rebuffed by the UK Government. [Interruption.] It is a simple fact.
In the last financial year, the east midlands saw spending on transport of £477 per person. London received £1,476 per head. Even allowing for the fairly  extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic, if we go back another year, we see a similar picture: £377 per person versus £856 in London. On every metric going back decades, we find a similar picture, with every single region of England not just outstripped by London, but overpowered by multiples of 200%, 300% and even 400%.
This system is holding back every part of these isles while making sure that London gets the lion’s share year after year, decade after decade. For all the Government’s talk of levelling up, there is no sign, and nor has there been since time immemorial, of making the kind of investment in the rest of England that is deemed necessary in Greater London. Even assuming that every single inch of track and electrification laid out in the integrated rail plan actually happens—about which, given the precedents of cancellation that have been referred to in this debate, we are right to be sceptical—it will do little or nothing to close the gap between the north of England and London.
There is a fundamental flaw in not just how the UK is governed, but how policy is decided, that allows this kind of warped disparity to go not only unchecked, but positively encouraged by successive Administrations and Transport Secretaries. Again, places such as the north of England, the south-west and the midlands bear the brunt of that dysfunctional system.
Lest anyone thinks that it is just SNP Members calling out the Government for their failures, let me correct that record. The chair of Transport for the North called the integrated rail plan “woefully inadequate”. The former technical director of HS2 said:
“You can’t have prosperity without being well connected.”
The chair of the North East Joint Transport Committee said that the plan is
“a hammer-blow for the North East and…the very opposite of levelling up”.
And the chief executive of the Rail Industry Association asked:
“How certain can the railway industry be that the”—
plan—
“will actually be delivered, given what’s happened to the previous plan?”
Once again, the north of England is being let down by a Government whose action, if not their rhetoric, stops at the M25.
We in Scotland are well used to being let down over connectivity. Nearly three decades ago, we were promised direct rail links to Europe through the channel tunnel. Just as with HS2 to the north-east of England, those promises were buried as soon as it became politically expedient. Even the proposed sleeper trains were punted off to Canada, and what a mistake that looks now. Europe is seeing a rapid renaissance in cross-border sleeper trains. Today, anyone looking to avoid flying to Europe will be boarding in central London, not Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh or Glasgow.
Around the same time—[Interruption.] That is a bizarre contribution; I will take an intervention, but I would advise against it if that is what it would be. Around the same time, the old Strathclyde Regional Council brought forward plans for a new and modern light rail network for Glasgow. They were kiboshed as  the UK Government were more interested in their dogmatic rush to privatise British Rail. Residents of Leeds should look into the history of the UK’s commitment to urban light rail in Scotland, given the promises now being made to them as a fig leaf to cover the HS2 cancellation. It was the UK Government who spent months and who knows how many fag packets drawing up madcap schemes for bridges over munitions dumps instead of working to improve our infrastructure in the real world. Knowing that, it was rich to hear the Scottish Secretary laud his Government’s Union connectivity review the other week. It is only since the dead hand of Westminster was removed from transport policy in Scotland that real progress on rail modernisation and a decarbonised future has been made.
It is the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Governments —in fairness, from three political parties on these Opposition Benches—who have upgraded, reopened, and decarbonised the four rail lines running between Scotland’s two biggest cities over the past two decades, and launched many other electrification projects, including Paisley Canal, which boosted demand by up to 35% at some stations. The length of track electrified in Scotland has gone up by nearly 50% since devolution under both SNP Governments and Labour-Lib Dem Administrations. In contrast, in England and Wales the increase is more like 14%.
It is the Scottish Government who have overseen the reopening of the Airdrie-Bathgate line, the current work on the Levenmouth rail link and, of course, the Borders Railway, with demand far outstripping predicted passenger numbers. We have got on with reversing Beeching without the need for exaggerated rhetoric, overpromising and underdelivering. It is also the Scottish Government who are taking our rail services back into public ownership, where they belong, from next year.
Scotland’s economic prosperity depends on not just our own domestic connectivity, but that of our neighbours. We want and need a prosperous and well connected north of England. Collectively, Scotland and the three northernmost regions of England have a population of 21 million. That is bigger than all but five EU member states, but nearly 16 million of those people are being let down by a UK Government and a Department for Transport who are stuck in a 19th-century mindset, where Whitehall is the centre of power and woe betide those who challenge its authority, as Transport for the North is now finding out.
To conclude, the north of England deserves better. The birthplace of the first steam railway, the first inter-city railway and the first purpose-built main line electric railway; the cradle of an industrial revolution where the railways and commerce went hand in hand—it is being let down, as it has been for decades, by a Westminster Government who lack vision, lack ideals, and above all lack commitment.
The new industrial revolution will be much different from that of the 19th century. It is about decarbonising our economy and society to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Scotland’s rail network will play its part by decarbonising all passenger services by 2035.

George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Scottish National party spokesman is likely to be taking up more time than the Opposition and Government Front Benchers. Is that in order?

Rosie Winterton: I am of the strong opinion that the SNP spokesperson is coming to a conclusion imminently.

Gavin Newlands: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have a Front-Bench role here, but I have only four lines left, so if the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) had let me finish, I would have taken up less time.
The UK’s plans, in contrast, leave much of the north of England stuck with those 19th-century services and infrastructure. It is time for the UK to learn from elsewhere, from Scotland, from Denmark—from anywhere, frankly, because anywhere else would have a rail policy that lasts longer than a Downing Street Christmas party. Other countries are joining up and truly are levelling up, but the UK Government continue to ensure that for huge swathes of England, the only way is south.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Prime Minister’s official spokesman has now confirmed that a Downing Street press conference hosted by the Prime Minister will take place at 6 pm. As of course I am sure the Government will want to ensure that this House hears from a Government Minister no later than the time of that press conference, may I ask whether Mr Speaker has received a request from the Government for a statement to take place in this House no later than 6 pm, to enable the Government to set out any proposals that are coming forward and to allow Members of this House to ask important questions on behalf of those we represent here?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. As I understand it, we have not had notification of a statement as yet, but I will ensure that that is confirmed and, if there is anything further that I need to add, I will do so. I call Andrew Jones to speak, with a four-minute time limit.

Andrew Jones: I agree with the first line of the motion before us today, recognising
“the importance of rail investment”,
but the motion goes on to say that the Government will not be delivering high-speed rail, electrification and the rest. That is simply wrong and we should not support it.
My first impression when I read the integrated rail plan was of its sheer scale, because £96 billion is a major investment. It is the largest rail investment ever made by any Government, and that must be recognised as a positive. Rail investment is a driver of economic growth, social mobility and environmental progress, and the scale of these actions is not limited to high-speed rail. We will see investment in ticketing and upgrading of the systems to bring the benefits of convenience and modal integration to more parts of the country, and also investment in smaller schemes, such as line reinstatement. I know that the first of the schemes to reverse the Beeching cuts opened last month. One of the key benefits of the IRP is certainty for the industry and its supply chain, which are in need of it.
I am a long-term supporter of HS2, and I was disappointed to learn that the eastern leg would not be delivered in full, because I think it is a good scheme. However, the picture is far more complex than the claims of cancellation. It is complex because parts of the original plan will happen—for example, the east and west midlands will be connected—but then an enhanced midland main line will bring HS2 services north to Sheffield and Leeds.
I understand from the IRP that we will see a range of benefits for the north, in the form of new lines, increased capacity, and improved journey times. In fact, the outcomes seem similar to those of previous plans, but they will be delivered in a different way. There will be investment in both the existing trans-Pennine line and the construction of a new fast line between Warrington, Manchester and Yorkshire. I think that my constituents will see enhanced services, but while I note that the IRP includes work on the connection between Leeds and Bradford, I am still concerned about overall Bradford connectivity, and I think there is more work to be done in that regard. I also note that the east coast main line will receive investment to deliver much improved journey times between Leeds and York, and a reduction of 20 minutes in the journey between Leeds and London. As a regular user of the service, I welcome that benefit.
I look around and I see rail improving. I see, for example, the doubling of the frequency of services between Harrogate, Knaresborough and York, which will take place this month. There is work to be done on the resilience of the east coast main line, and I hope to see the electrification made more robust. However, the motion regrets the scale of electrification. It is remarkable that Labour should remind the House just how poor its record is. Labour delivered 63 miles in 13 years; we have delivered 1,221 in 11 years. I remain disappointed that HS2 will not be coming north fully, as was planned, but the next question for me is how quickly we can deliver on these plans. HS2 would not have reached Leeds until the 2040s, but we should now be asking ourselves how we can deliver these schemes better and more quickly, and gain the benefits earlier.
We are in a ludicrous position today, with the Leader of the Opposition tabling a motion criticising the Government when he has repeatedly called for the cancellation of HS2 in the first place. If he were not just a feeble opportunist, he would have tabled a motion in support of the Government, whose record, compared with that of the previous Government, is like the result of the Lionesses’ match against Latvia last week. I can inform those who do not follow football that it was 20-nil to the Lionesses. The motion before us fails to recognise the progress that is being made. When any Government invest £96 billion in rail, we should welcome that, which I why I will not support the motion.

George Howarth: I want to address the way in which these new proposals affect the Liverpool city region, and specifically the way in which it will be affected by the upgrade, as distinct from the northern powerhouse option. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) quoted the metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram, who said that the upgrade was the “cheap and nasty” option. I do not think that there is any hyperbole in that; it is an accurate description of what is going on.
I want to concentrate on the disruptive effect that this new proposal will have over the six years of its lifetime. For example, it will lead to 500,000 more road journeys annually, partly as a result of freight being shifted from the rail network on to the motorway network and partly as a result of private car journeys. That will mean a loss of something like 88 freight trains a week, which will lead to an additional 2,000 truck journeys a week and of course more car journeys. That is bound to have an adverse impact on the environment and on our net zero target. It will badly affect the Government’s levelling-up agenda. We estimate that the Liverpool city region economy will be worse off to the tune of £280 million—a vast sum of money—as a result of the disruption to trade.
In terms of rail travel, there will be only marginal or negative gains to journey times. For example, the journey time to Manchester will be reduced from 37 minutes to 35 minutes. Well, that is not going to make anyone in Liverpool want to go and work in Manchester, or vice versa. Those figures compare with the 23-minute journey time that the Northern Powerhouse Rail option offered. Turning to capacity, which is after all the main reason for HS2, the so-called upgrade proposal will add little or no additional capacity. For example, there will be 83% capacity compared with the industry standard of 85%. That sounds quite marginal, but it means that when there are adverse weather conditions, the system will go into chaos, because there will not be the capacity to deal with it. To summarise, the upgrade option will be disruptive, with little or no gain to be had.
Let me conclude by making what I hope will be a constructive suggestion to the Secretary of State. Steve Rotheram has made it plain that as a city region we are open to compromise, so will the Secretary of State agree today to meet the metro Mayors of the region, to see whether we can arrive at a compromise that will improve this outcome, in contrast to the rather bleak picture that I have just had to paint?

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to follow, on this side of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones). We both have the distinction of having had two stints as Ministers in charge of HS2 and major rail projects, and we both bear the scars on our backs. One of my first duties as a Minister was to cancel the electrification of the midland main line, so I am delighted to see that the integrated rail plan reverses that. Who knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) might get a surprise in five or six years’ time. Who is to say?

Lilian Greenwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Maynard: Only if I get another minute!

Lilian Greenwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that this decision to reverse the previous decision to cancel the electrification of the midland main line shows that the Government do not have a proper strategy for delivering net zero or for delivering rail investment? Is this not the most inefficient way to electrify the railway? Should they not have a proper rolling programme rather than this stop-go approach?

Paul Maynard: I have to disagree with the distinguished former Chairman of the Select Committee. I am about to set out why I think there is perhaps an understandable flaw in the system of rail investment.
There is a political problem with rail investment when justifiable ambition on both sides of the House runs into the hard, cold reality of the public finances and the practical reality of enhancing rail networks in a sustainable and timely fashion. Since around 2008, we have seen plans for HS2 come along in differing fashions and HS3 being rebranded as Northern Powerhouse Rail to serve a shifting cast list of northern cities, although no one could quite agree on the full list. Then Midlands Connect came along because it did not want to miss out on the party that the northern powerhouse was having, and all the while in the background there was a threnody of upgrades for the east coast main line, the west coast main line and the trans-Pennine routes.
The Oakervee review progressed in the latter part of 2019. I was the HS2 Minister at the time, and it became increasingly clear to me that there was no proper understanding either here or more widely in the country of how any of it should best be sequenced, built and delivered in a timely fashion. It was deemed sensible and appropriate to ask the National Infrastructure Commission to look in detail at all the plans that were in circulation, which led to the rail needs assessment for the midlands and the north.
None of those criticising the Government today has engaged with the analysis from the National Infrastructure Commission on the feasibility, rather than the desirability, of delivering all these schemes. Indeed, it instructs the Government not to overpromise and underdeliver but to underpromise and overdeliver—it is easy to mix up the two.
As a Minister, nothing made my heart plummet more than when groups of people came to me from across the country with lengthy lists of projects they wanted. It is much better to set out the conditional outcomes we wish to achieve, in terms of both capacity and journey times, preferably set within the country’s economic objectives, and to let the transport planners come up with suggestions and answers. Instead, we get named projects that acquire almost mythical status, brands in their own right. This obscures whether those conditional outcomes can be achieved sooner by other, more affordable means, which is what we see with the integrated rail plan.
There is an underlying importance of continually asking the right questions, rather than identifying marquee projects that can be trumpeted politically but may supersede less eye-catching but more deliverable short-term projects that would have greater economic impact.
The integrated rail plan does not contain everything I might wish and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I would rather see phase 2b, the eastern leg, go ahead. I would rather see Bradford served much better than it will be, but that does not make the integrated rail plan an incoherent and unrealistic package. As schemes and projects mature, and as we know more about the conditions in which they will be built, a few may turn out to be easier and cheaper than predicted; others will be more complex than expected. The nature of building railways is that we cannot predict how easy it will be. Plans will change and details will alter, but at least we now have a baseline for what can  be delivered within a specific budget and a specific timeline and, to some degree, against a range of desired outcomes.
The construction of new railways takes decades, not months. It is the work of many Governments, not just one. Transport planning is not inherently politically exciting, but I hope we can now move away from the feverish branding of specific projects and understand how we can create capacity, rolling stock, station enhancements and a much wider range of interventions to identify and remedy the inadequacies that we all know exist across our rail network.
The IRP, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is a £96 billion investment in our rail network, and it should be welcomed on both sides of the House. It will bring benefits far sooner to many of our communities across the north, so it should be welcomed and not turned into a political football.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: I know it is tempting to take interventions, but I would be grateful if colleagues could still stick to the four minutes, otherwise time will be taken from others.

Andy McDonald: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
Much has been said about the disintegrated rail plan, the watering down of the northern powerhouse and the scrapping of the eastern leg of HS2, and all that criticism is well founded. The bottom line is that this Government have broken their promises. I see the northern rail network as a beating heart, and the arteries are badly clogged. So much so, we need stents where the blockages are most severe and some major bypasses to take the pressure off the entire system.
The conventional system needs upgrading as well as the high-speed intercity connections. The Tories, the Prime Minister and a succession of Transport Secretaries, including the latest one, have argued that we need both. That is what HS2 and NPR, as promised, would have delivered, but it has all been tossed aside by the Tories’ integrated rail plan, which is nothing short of a betrayal.
For all the talk of levelling up, the Government are failing constituents like mine in Middlesbrough. When I came into Parliament at the end of 2012, I immediately began to campaign for better transport services in our region. One element of that was a direct rail service from Middlesbrough to London, as we were the largest conurbation in the UK without a direct rail link to our capital city. Despite its late arrival, we will finally be getting that service next week, but it is only one train out and one train back each day. It is a start, but the fight continues. I will do everything I can to make sure we get the promised seven trains out and six trains back a day, and that they materialise as soon as possible.
Another key issue on which I have pressed the Department for Transport from the moment I arrived in the House is the expansion of electrified rail from Northallerton on the east coast main line to Middlesbrough. Electrification is a hugely important infrastructure development for our wider ambitions. Back in 2013, a national electrification taskforce reported to the  then Secretary of State, who is now the right hon. Lord McLoughlin, highlighting 12 northern routes that should be electrified by 2024. Northallerton to Middlesbrough was among the 12 routes earmarked for completion in the period 2019 to 2024, but since then the Government have gone completely silent on the schemes. We need a modern mass transit system connecting our communities, with full connectivity of our rail services across and beyond our region. That would be truly transformative for our community.

Tahir Ali: On the point about connecting communities, does my hon. Friend agree that HS2 was not just about building track, building stations or reducing journey times; it was more about regeneration and connecting regions and cities, and about the economic benefits that could flow between them?

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The entire purpose of HS2, which was supported by successive Governments—the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and supported it himself—was to release capacity on our conventional rail line. If we really want to make that advance, take vehicles off our roads and get people off aviation and into rail, HS2 is the way to deliver it. Give us the option to go all the way up to Scotland, because that is critical. Sadly, that opportunity has been lost with the plan that has been announced.
Observing your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will draw my remarks to a close. We want those improvements in our systems, and there is no reason in the world why we should not strive for exactly that. Frankly, however, I have no faith that the Government will deliver on any of their past promises, and I fear that their further promises are destined to be broken.

Mark Eastwood: I thank the Secretary of State for mentioning Dewsbury several times in his opening remarks. Under the old proposals for Northern Powerhouse Rail, Dewsbury would not have got a single mention, because it was not included.
People often forget that the north is not just made up of cities such as Manchester or Edinburgh; towns such as Dewsbury, Mirfield and Huddersfield also deserve accessible and realistically delivered transport services. Under the old plans, my constituency would have seen little, if any, improvement, but it will now undergo major developments, including full electrification and improved station facilities, alongside faster connections to nearby cities. The original Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals would not have delivered benefits to the north for another two decades, and Dewsbury and Huddersfield would have been missed out in their entirety. That is why I fully support the integrated rail plan.
On that point, I was extremely surprised that the Labour leader of Kirklees Council signed a joint letter to the Prime Minister suggesting that he wants anywhere but his own borough to benefit from the integrated rail plan. I therefore urge the leader of Kirklees Council to stop blindly following his counterparts in Bradford and Leeds, and the Mayor of West Yorkshire, and to stand up for Kirklees by acknowledging the fact that Dewsbury and Huddersfield benefit greatly from the introduction of this plan.
The plan also changes the game for British businesses and those involved in the rail industry, such as Associated Utility Supplies Ltd, a company based in Clayton West that supplies specialist equipment to Network Rail. Coming from a business background myself, I know the importance of the tendering process. I will continue to work with not just AUS, but other companies in my constituency to ensure that they have the best chance of taking the opportunities granted through this major rail investment.
One final piece of the jigsaw in my constituency is still missing: the much-needed upgrades to the Penistone line. Despite my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) and I putting in a joint levelling-up bid, there is still uncertainty as to whether we will be successful as we move into the second round of bidding. The integrated rail plan more than adequately covers those travelling from east to west by significantly improving links with Manchester, Leeds and York, via Dewsbury and Huddersfield. However, it is equally important that we link up the north and south through my constituency and beyond by connecting Huddersfield to Sheffield, thereby making it accessible to people who live in those villages in my constituency that have stations on the line. This would enable the people of Stocksmoor, Denby Dale and Shepley to commute between those hubs and, just as easily, to Manchester and Leeds.
The making of much-needed station improvements on the Penistone line and the movement from an hourly to a half-hourly service would be transformational for my constituency. With that in mind, will the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), consider the benefits of such an upgrade and investigate how it could be incorporated into the IRP? With a total investment of £96 billion, I am sure he could squeeze in the odd £47 million.
Investment in rail in the north was a central element of the manifesto that I ran on. Levelling up cannot wait until the 2040s, so I fully support the plan, which will deliver more punctual, frequent and reliable journeys for the people of Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale.

Dan Jarvis: I declare an interest as a metro Mayor. Also, it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge the fact that both Ministers on the Front Bench—the hon. Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) and for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)—have been unfailingly helpful and cheerful in supporting the work we are trying to do in South Yorkshire, so the critique of the Government’s plans that I am about to make is aimed not at them personally but at decisions that have been made in Downing Street.
When the Prime Minister first set out his levelling-up agenda back in July 2019, he made an unequivocal pledge to fund Northern Powerhouse Rail. Since then, he and his Government have repeated that pledge not once, not twice but 60 times—not in part and not with compromises, but in full. The Prime Minister was right to make those promises, because the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail and, indeed, HS2 in full is the least  that the north could expect. It is not some extravagant fantasy—another airport in the Thames or bridge over the Irish sea—and it is not special treatment; it is the bare minimum to redress a legacy of decades of neglect.
Set against that neglect, Transport for the North’s plan of investment, spread over 30 years, is entirely reasonable, but instead we have ended up with a cut-price, compromise scheme that leaves Sheffield disconnected from any high-speed link to Manchester or Hull; that does nothing to fix the unacceptably slow and infrequent connection to our sister powerhouse city of Leeds, just 35 miles away; that leaves the great city of Bradford isolated on a branch line; and that does too little to mend the north-south divide and risks widening the east-west divide.
Worse yet, the IRP sets the stage for decades to come. This was the moment to invest in our railway infrastructure for generations to come; it was not the moment to cut corners. Instead, the plan bakes in mediocrity for a generation and delays the structural improvements needed for the fundamental change that levelling up is supposed to be all about. Sadly, all this is par for the course. The Government have a consistent track record of dressing up half measures and telling voters that they amount to transformation. If it means anything, levelling up must mean that, for a change, the north gets what it needs—that we do not get second best.
Let us be clear: this is a betrayal not just of the north but of the whole country.
Northern Powerhouse Rail could have helped to create 850,000 extra jobs and unlock £3.4 billion of gross value added every year. It could have reduced the £14 billion a year regional inequality that it is estimated to cost in lost tax revenue and higher health and benefit spending, but, as it stands, the IRP only confirms the utter poverty of vision of this Government and the insincerity of their pledges. Perhaps some people are so used to this that they have forgotten to be outraged, but I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have not, and enough is enough.

Jamie Wallis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).
It is essential that our country, which invented rail travel, continues to pioneer rail connectivity. Projects such as the integrated rail plan and the publication of the Union connectivity review proved that this Government, despite what the Opposition claim, remain committed to levelling up as one nation and building back better from the pandemic. In total, the integrated rail plan brings forth the single biggest investment in the history of our rail network—£96 billion—delivering three new high-speed rail lines that will slash journey times across the United Kingdom.
Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I have consistently championed HS2’s benefits for Wales. Too often, the benefits of HS2 are thought to impact only England, but this investment brings benefits for the entirety of the United Kingdom, including for passengers travelling from my constituency in south Wales. This plan will spread the benefits of HS2 further, enabling more frequent, faster journeys while simultaneously enhancing passenger capacity across the country.
Additionally, the investment of the IRP provides opportunities and job security for people across the whole of the UK and supports vital sectors, such as steel, that are integral to my constituency of Bridgend—many of my constituents work in the Port Talbot steelworks in the neighbouring constituency of Aberavon.
Previous plans would not have delivered benefits to Wales for another two decades. Levelling up cannot wait until the 2040s; it must happen now. These plans deliver transformational changes in speed, capacity and reliability, while increasing prosperity and access to larger job markets for all throughout the United Kingdom. It is clear to me that this plan is a record-breaking, fantastic investment in our rail. It is not just for that reason that I will not be supporting the Opposition motion this evening, but for three further reasons as well: less than 65 miles of track was electrified prior to 2010; Sadiq Khan’s Transport for London is in tatters; and the Welsh Government-controlled rail lines are a devolved disaster.

Nia Griffith: It is not just the north that has been badly let down by this Government, but the people in Wales. All of us recognise the need for rail investment not just for the immediate economic and commercial benefits, but in order to decarbonise our transport, which currently accounts for some 27% of all emissions. Electrification of the railways and investment in the renewable generation of electricity are an obvious way in which emissions can be reduced. Then of course there is the need to increase capacity. I have frequently raised with railway professionals the question of why more freight cannot be transported by rail, and I am told that, in many instances, there is simply not the capacity.
The truth is that the people in Wales have been badly short-changed by this Government in respect of investment in rail infrastructure, because, although Wales has some 11% of the UK’s rail track, we have barely had a 2% share of investment in rail infrastructure. Matters are currently compounded by the fact that HS2 has been designated as an England and Wales project—

Jamie Wallis: rose—

Nia Griffith: No, I will not give way. The hon. Member has had his say.
Matters are currently compounded by the fact that HS2 has been designated as an England and Wales project in spite of the fact that, according to the Government’s own analysis, rather than benefiting from the project, Wales will actually miss out. The designation means that Wales does not receive any Barnett consequentials, so I again ask the Government whether they will now follow the recommendations of the Welsh Affairs Committee and redesignate HS2 as an England-only project, and then accord Wales the appropriate funding in the form of Barnett consequentials.
Sadly, time and again, we have heard the Tory Government talk of lavish investment, but it is all talk that is not backed up in reality. Instead, we have had announcements that are reduced in scope, re-announced as if they were new, delayed, postponed or completely forgotten. All we know is that they are broken promises that are not delivered.
One such case is the electrification of the Great Western main line. In 2009, the former Labour Government announced a £1.1 billion project to electrify the line to Swansea. However, in 2010, the incoming Tory Government immediately axed the Cardiff to Swansea leg. After some considerable campaigning by local MPs, a promise was made in 2012 that the electrification would in fact continue to Swansea. However, in 2017, the Government again broke their promise and axed the Cardiff to Swansea leg. When this issue was raised recently, the Secretary of State for Wales responded glibly that there was no point in doing it because the nature of the track meant that speeds would not be significantly improved—what a pathetic answer. For the sake simply of combating climate change, electrification makes sense. Indeed, it is essential if we are to decarbonise our transport.

Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Welsh Affairs Committee has recommended, Wales should get its fair share of Barnett consequentials for HS2, which would be £4.6 billion, to electrify, modernise and move towards net zero in the rail system?

Nia Griffith: Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this matter.
After all the razzmatazz of COP26, I hope that the Government are going to get serious about tackling climate change. One obvious way to do this would be to electrify the railway, not just to Swansea, but all the way through to the strategic port of Milford Haven.
We desperately need upgrades to the north Wales main line, which goes through to Holyhead, which handles huge volumes of traffic with Ireland. We also need much better connectivity between north Wales and the north-west of England, as there is a huge volume of cross-border traffic. Indeed, Transport for Wales and Growth Track 360 have been developing plans for a north Wales metro, as well as improvements to the north Wales main line, speed and capacity upgrades between Wrexham, Bidston and Liverpool, and proper links to HS2.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was sad to see that the very good idea of funding further work on the Wrexham to Bidston line, which was put forward under the levelling-up proposal, in fact got no money whatever, and that again Wales has been levelled down by this Government?

Nia Griffith: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. In fact, Sir Peter Hendy, in his report, recognised the value of that project, the Burns report on improvements for the area around Newport, and the need for improvements from Cardiff up to the midlands—all very worthwhile projects. There is no lack of ideas in which the Government could invest, if they were so minded to.
I really cannot finish without stressing the real need for this Government to respect devolution and the Welsh Government. No matter how big a Union flag Ministers put on their internet background, if they ride roughshod over the Welsh Government rather than fostering co-operation, they will provoke resentment. A strong Union needs effective collaboration, not—as we have seen with the community renewal fund—the UK Government ignoring the long experience and strategic planning of the Welsh Government.
I remind the House of the huge commitment of the Welsh Government to public transport infrastructure, taking over the Wales and Borders franchise, creating Transport for Wales, and now investing £738 million in transforming the valleys lines. To match the Welsh Government’s ambition and commitment to rail, in which they are investing, we now need the Government to step up to their responsibilities for rail to Wales and main lines within Wales, make up for their lack of investment to date and for their broken promises, consult meaningfully with the Welsh Government on priorities and plans, and deliver for Wales.

James Grundy: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his support in securing the funding for the reopening of Golborne station in my constituency of Leigh, and of course his excellent ministerial team for all the other work that they have been doing. The £15 million from the Government’s transforming cities fund will ensure that the long-held ambition of my constituents in Golborne to reopen our railway station is realised, with the timetable for the completion of the new station currently set to be 2026-27, although I hope that we can bring that target forward and would welcome an opportunity to meet the Secretary of State to discuss that issue.
Secondly, I welcome the investment that the Government are making in signalling improvements to create capacity on the Castlefield corridor, which would allow a station serving Leigh to be built at Kenyon Junction—the first railway junction built in the entire world—just south of the Atherleigh Way—another long-held ambition of my constituents, and a much-needed improvement.
Next I should like to talk about the Golborne spur of HS2. I declare my interest: the spur affects my family home, the Grundy family farm, as it does the homes of thousands of my constituents in Lowton and Golborne. The integrated rail plan and Union connectivity review both recommended that the Government look at alternatives to the Golborne spur. I strongly welcome that recommendation, on behalf of my constituents. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) will strongly agree with me on that point.
Finally, I pay tribute to the thousands of local residents and the many local groups who have contributed to the campaign against the Golborne spur of HS2—two individuals, in particular. The first is Linda Graham. Some Members who have been around long enough may remember that she was Andy Burnham’s office manager, and a very formidable one at that. The second, more sadly, is the late Ted Thwaite, chair of local residents’ group the Lowton East Neighbourhood Development Forum, who sadly passed away just a couple of weeks before the announcement about the review of the Golborne spur. He was a great man. Many people would spend their 70s with their feet up sat on the couch; Ted spent his 70s campaigning for his village and his community. As his great friend Bob said when he was giving the eulogy at his funeral, if Ted has anything to do with it, that review will go the right way. I ask Members to listen to the residents of Lowton and Golborne and take note of all the thousands of letters and petitions they have sent in over the years: please scrap the Golborne spur of HS2.

Mark Hendrick: The north of England is the birthplace of the modern railway, with the first passenger services launching in the UK between Darlington and Stockton in 1825. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway, which opened in 1830, was the first modern railroad. Preston was an early adopter of railways, with the first station opening in 1838. Since the Victorian age, the north has lagged far behind the south in new railways and infrastructure. The existing infrastructure has reached capacity, but now demand continues to grow. A fast railway line would take northern England into the 21st century and help to level up the region, which continues to be the promise of this Government.
The case to have a high-speed railway running through the centre of Britain was first formally made by the Labour Government in 2010. It is not just about speed; capacity constraints are mainly at the heart of the strategic case for HS2 and north-south rail links in England. Rail capacity is dependent on two things: train capacity and route capacity. HS2 will improve transport times, create jobs and help the country’s economy while serving as a driver of growth in regional economies and creating opportunities for regeneration. Ultimately, the economic benefits will be worth the proposed costs.
The Government said that they wanted to deliver more frequent, more reliable and faster journeys between our major economic centres. Beyond the immediate transport concerns, the gap in productivity and economic growth between London and the south-east and the north was recognised in the strategic case for HS2, linking in with the Prime Minister’s ambitions to “level up the country”. In fact, the Government’s own national infrastructure strategy cites backing HS2 to deliver essential north-south connectivity as an example of how it is using infrastructure to unite and level up the UK.

Sara Britcliffe: rose—

Mark Hendrick: I am sorry, but I want to save time for other speakers.
As recently as February 2021, the Prime Minister told MPs in the Chamber that the project was going ahead:
“I can certainly confirm that we are going to develop the eastern leg as well as the whole of the HS2.”—[Official Report,  10 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 325.]
The Transport Secretary, who is not in his place, outlined his commitment to the project nearly seven months ago. Similarly, Northern Powerhouse Rail was supposed to deliver a new high-speed rail connection between Manchester and Leeds, Leeds and Birmingham and London and Birmingham in phase 1, due to open in 2029, thus linking England’s four largest urban areas with faster train services. Now the project’s proposed £34 billion budget is being slashed by half, so the trimmed-down initiative does not resemble the bold rethink of Britain’s rail system once promised. That has triggered widespread condemnation in the north, in both Labour and Conservative seats. The Lancashire local enterprise partnership believes that the productivity gains as a result of HS2 services to the area could help provide an extra £600 million for the region. HS2 will reinforce Preston’s position as a strategic rail hub. The Lancashire LEP has referred to Preston as the engine to  establish an “arc of prosperity” running from Lancaster and through to Blackpool, Blackburn and Burnley, taking in Lancashire’s aerospace, energy, tourism and higher education sectors. In Preston itself, HS2 could mean 75,000 extra visitors a year.
The rhetoric has not matched the reality. The Government should deliver on their promises from three general elections. I urge the Government to rethink their plans.

Darren Henry: A few weeks ago, the Government announced £96 billion worth of infrastructure for rail throughout the midlands and the north—an unprecedented commitment to levelling up transport and delivering on the Government’s agenda. The east midlands, where I have my constituency of Broxtowe, has received the lowest spend on transport per head in the country year after year. With the Government having laid down a package of more than £12 billion of rail infrastructure for the east midlands, they have made it absolutely clear that that ends today.
The rail improvements will not only provide faster journeys, increased capacity and more frequent trains, but will make us greener. We are not only levelling up; we are cleaning up. Electrification under the IRP will mean that more than 75% of Britain’s main trunk roads will be decarbonised. It will also take significant volumes of passengers and freight away from petrol and diesel cars and trucks and on to electric trains. By upgrading our local services, we will reduce the use of cars and reduce carbon emissions, building back better and helping us to reach net zero by 2050.
In my constituency of Broxtowe, we are receiving a brand-new station at Toton, with links to Nottingham and other areas throughout the region. A shuttle could also operate from Toton to the HS2 stop at East Midlands Parkway, meaning faster and more efficient travel times throughout my constituency. In the area, we will see the new Maid Marian line, as well as the Robin Hood line, improving connectivity in the east midlands, thus unlocking investment and creating jobs throughout Toton and surrounding communities. It is now absolutely essential that we move forward at speed. It is a fantastic package in front of us that has excited many in the region, and we must now see those plans come to fruition. It is time to get shovels in the ground and get the job done.

Naseem Shah: I wish I could show the House an image of Bradford’s transport system. A train comes into Forster Square and must reverse back out, and the same happens less than just half a mile away on the other side of town, where a train coming into Bradford Interchange also must reverse back out. The reality is that Bradford transport is literally a one-way, dead-end cul-de-sac.
The people of Bradford were continually reassured that they would get NPR in Bradford. I wrote to the Chancellor a week before this announcement with cross-party Members and the Bradford business community, highlighting the importance of the Government sticking to their promise. I highlighted the great work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) has done in raising the need for a proper transport network.

Kim Leadbeater: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the scandalous way that the proud Yorkshire city of Bradford—a place close to my heart, having worked there for more than a decade—has been let down yet again. Would she also agree that for the towns and villages in my constituency of Batley and Spen, we need more detail on the stopping patterns at intermediate stations? Faster trains between cities on existing lines do nothing to free up the capacity that we desperately need.

Naseem Shah: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with the valid points she makes.
Campaigners say that it was quicker to travel to places from Bradford on a steam train than it is on today’s network. The Edwardians could get on a train from Bradford to Wakefield and it would take 30 minutes. Today, it is 48 minutes. Bradford is Britain’s seventh biggest city, with the youngest population, and it is the worst connected major city in the UK. We were promised a through line and were betrayed by this Government. Only a few weeks ago, at the annual Bradford chamber of commerce dinner, the new president Victoria Wainwright said, “This isn’t the end of the line for business in Bradford; it’s never the end of the line for Bradford”, because despite the failure, neglect, and contempt that this Government have shown towards Bradford and its people, Bradford is still reaching new heights.
Bradford is the only city outside London that has two FTSE 100 companies—Bradford & Bingley and Provident Financial. We are proud to have in Bradford the headquarters of Morrisons, one of the country’s largest supermarkets. Najam Kidwai, who is from Bradford, today listed a company on NASDAQ that is five times over-subscribed with more than $1 billion in share orders. We have curries that Lahore and New Delhi struggle to compete with and milkshakes that have been tried and tested by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. We have the Bradford literature festival, which is the most diverse festival in Europe, and we are bidding to be the city of culture, because, among other things, Bradford has one of the largest collections of David Hockney’s work, is a UNESCO city of film and has a world heritage site.
I end by asking hon. Members to imagine the potential that Bradford could unlock if the Government supported it and it got its fair share—I would be happy to work on a non-partisan basis with the Government on that. With the transport investment alone, we would have unlocked a £30 billion economic boost to the region within a decade; brought more than 6.5 million people to the city; created 27,000 jobs; generated a 10% uplift in land value; and unlocked 1.3 million additional accessible jobs within 90 minutes of Bradford.
When I was growing up, I knew my mother had been down to town because she used to walk through Rackhams and try on all the nice perfumes—a bit like people do in Selfridges these days. That is what Bradford used to have, and it deserves to be back at its best, not just for Bradford, but for the whole of the north.
The litmus test of levelling up is levelling up for Bradford. I am grateful to my friends, the hon. Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), who have supported NPR, but the Government have failed. It is time for the Government to remove the iron gate in front of Bradford. They need to support us, invest and allow Bradford to unlock its full potential.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. If everybody can resume their seats, I am getting information that there is likely to be a statement at approximately 6 o’clock. The debate would be paused for that period and would then be resumed after that, as I understand it. If anything changes, I will let you know, or Mr Speaker will give a statement informing the House what the procedure will be when he takes the Chair to chair the statement.

Sara Britcliffe: In Hyndburn and Haslingden, we have not had representation for years and Labour did nothing for our area. I have campaigned tirelessly to improve our transport links. For example, in the recent Budget, the Manchester to Rawtenstall service was given approval through the next stages of the Restoring Your Railway fund; there have been advancements on the vital Skipton to Colne railway line, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) has worked with me; and Accrington station has received money for disabled access. I also worked with hon. Members to save the vital X41 route.
I push the Government to keep the promise that they will focus on the smaller projects that link towns to cities. A 25-mile journey from Accrington to Manchester can take an hour by rail. When we look at projects about journeys from Manchester to London, we have to understand that that takes 10 minutes more than a 25-mile journey. I ask the Government to keep that promise to connect constituencies such as mine to the big cities, so that an area that could be a brilliant commuter town can really prosper.

Jeremy Corbyn: Railways are the most essential form of transport, and they are the greenest and cleanest form of transport available, so their development is absolutely essential. We have to reflect, however, that since privatisation in the 1990s, fares have gone up astronomically, there has been massive profit-taking from the railway systems, and fare-paying passengers are paying the price. We should take the opportunity to take the entirety of the rail system into public ownership, as we put forward in our 2019 manifesto. The longer we go on with a partly privatised rail system, the longer many of the people we represent—many of them—simply cannot afford to travel by train. They are, however, expected to support a very high level of investment in the railway system. We do need to address the problems of the fare gap.
This expensively produced document—the integrated rail plan—is actually a massive apology for the failure of the Government to carry out the promises they made in 2019 about the investment they would make in the midland main line, the Pennine lines and all across the north of England. I have absolute solidarity with all of my colleagues across the north who are demanding proper, rational investment—

Jacob Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jeremy Corbyn: No, I will not give way.
Those colleagues are demanding proper, rational investment to ensure that their towns and cities are properly served by the railway system across this country. I absolutely support them in doing that.
There has to be an integrated transport system in this country. Therefore, the underfunding of Transport for the North and the failure of the Government to recognise the need to support Transport for London at the present time are actually part and parcel of the same short-sighted mentality they have to try to get through the current problems they face.
We need to increase rail capacity, and we need to increase rail capacity all across the country. I support the reopening of closed railway lines. The whole process that Beeching carried out under a Tory Government of closing branch lines all over the country did a great deal of damage to the railway network as a whole, but I have to say that some of the reopening is good but short-sighted. For example, why was the line reopened as far as Okehampton, but there is no plan so far to reopen it all the way to Plymouth? And so it goes on all across the country. I would urge the Government—

Jacob Young: rose—

Jeremy Corbyn: Just so that the hon. Member is aware of it, I am not giving way.
I would urge the Government to make sure that in their plans for reopening disused lines—[Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: Order. I cannot hear what Mr Corbyn is saying, and he is not giving way.

Jeremy Corbyn: I would urge the Government in planning any reopenings, which generally I would support, to do a serious cost-benefit analysis and look at the potential of the line. In most cases, there has been a gross underestimation of the benefits that reopening brings. For example, the Edinburgh to Galashiels line, which is doing very well, should be opened right the way through to Carlisle.
The last point I would make is that to make the railways affordable we have to take the profit motive out of the running of the train operating companies, and we have to bring them into public ownership to make railways affordable for all. Otherwise, what are we going to say—that those less well-off can take the bus or those less well-off can take long-distance coaches, while the railways will be there for those who can afford it and for the middle classes? No, railways have to be there for everybody, and that means proper investment and public ownership.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. We are now going down to a three-minute limit.

Kieran Mullan: The railways are at the heart of Crewe’s history. The town came after the railways did, in fact. Until the station and railway works were built, it was just a village. While we do not have the same dependency on the railway sector as we used to, it is a key part of our local industry. So major investment in the railways, wherever it is in the country, can only be good news for Crewe.
Companies in Crewe and Nantwich contribute to the building and maintenance of trains and railway lines in all sorts of different ways. The fact that Crewe is itself at the heart of these plans means that we will be benefiting directly from what is the single biggest investment in the railways ever in the north and the midlands. The integrated rail plan is set to level up our transport networks in Crewe and across the north-west. Crewe is set to become a vital super-hub, connecting high-speed services and the existing railway network.
The arrival of HS2 services into Crewe and the confirmation of the Crewe to Manchester leg of HS2 will benefit my constituents in a number of ways. The most talked about element is the drastic cuts in journey times—for example, from Crewe to Manchester airport down to 15 minutes, Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly to 24 minutes and Crewe to Birmingham halved to 25 minutes. These sorts of journey times will allow my residents to make very different choices. Young people will not have to leave our area to get a job in a big city or to study, which means we will keep their vibrancy, their spending power and their contribution to our local communities.
Of course, these journey times, Crewe’s railway heritage and its centrality to the future of our railway networks make it the only place we could sensibly place the headquarters of Great British Railways, and I know the Minister will find it very difficult to disagree with that.
Importantly, by moving inter-city traffic off the west coast main line, this investment will free up capacity on existing lines and routes so that Crewe can benefit from more frequent and reliable services locally, which I think is what my residents care the most about. We do need to work hard to make the most of that opportunity—for example, by making sure that services from Nantwich to Crewe are improved in frequency and reliability.
As always, the Opposition are just not credible on these issues. I have completely lost track of all the extra things they want to spend money on across government, whether welfare, foreign aid, education, the NHS, social care, business rates, support for lockdown measures and now the railways. We can guarantee that whenever the Government decide to spend money, it will not be enough; the Opposition would spend more and that would make everything all right. But what does their track record show? The last Labour Government did not require Northern Rail to invest and improve the network—contracts signed by the Labour Government were done on the basis of zero growth and zero investment. Under Labour, the ranking of our roads and railways plummeted from seventh in the world to 33rd, meaning UK infrastructure was ranked below those of Namibia, Slovenia and Cyprus. That is their track record on infrastructure in this country.
How would the Opposition pay for what they are proposing? They tell us, “Just tax the rich and tax wealth,” with no details, no idea of how they are going   to do it and how much money they would get from that. While they cry “betrayal” we know that their track record is one of betrayal while ours will be one of delivery on railways and infrastructure for the people of the north and midlands.

Ian Lavery: This has been an interesting discussion. Not once has any Government Front Bencher mentioned Northumberland. It is a wonderful county and I wonder whether Ministers or indeed the Secretary of State have ever visited it. The Government’s integrated rail plan proposals are an absolute disaster for the north-east. Once again the Government have overpromised and under-delivered. Once again the north-east has been betrayed; once again the saying “the great north rail betrayal” rings true throughout the communities of the north-east.
The scrapping of the eastern leg of HS2 is extremely disappointing, if not surprising in the least, and the Government announced on more than 60 occasions that they would not scrap it. But in the north-east the plans were never really going to benefit the communities in the first place. The eastern leg of HS2 basically only went as far as Leeds and NPR only went as far north as Newcastle, with those in Downing Street missing out the wonderful county of Northumberland. I wish people would visit our wonderful county.
The plans to reintroduce passenger rail on the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line are essential. I and my predecessors have been campaigning for that for generations, and I want to place on record my thanks to the South East Northumberland Rail User Group for its outstanding campaigning efforts. I want the Minister to please give a firm commitment in the winding-up speech that that line will go ahead. I say that simply because of the broken promises of this Government with regard to many things—we cannot trust a word they say.
On the east coast main line, the proposals to change the services schedule in order to shave seconds off the time from Edinburgh to London were an outrage, and that was only changed because of public annoyance. I ask the Government to please look at that again. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said only a few seconds ago in his contribution, public ownership is the answer to the issues facing the disastrous transport system on our rail networks.
Debate interrupted.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am now going to call the Leader of the House to move a motion without notice regarding the time allocated for the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Business of the House (Today)

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move,
That the Order of 7 December 2021 (Business of the House (8 December)) be varied as follows:
After “three hours” insert—
“; such business may be interrupted by any statement made by a Minister of the Crown, and in calculating the three hours no account shall be taken of the time taken by any such statement.”
The motion amends the business motion agreed yesterday to allow the Opposition day debate to continue for  three hours, with time in lieu for the time taken for the Government statement.

Lindsay Hoyle: In this unusual situation, and to facilitate this important statement, I accept the need to have the motion without notice.
Question put and agreed to.

Covid-19 Update

Sajid Javid: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the covid-19 pandemic. We are working night and day to understand more about the omicron variant. There is still a lot to learn, but some important data has emerged recently and I would like to update the House on the latest developments.
There are three reasons why the omicron variant is a threat. First, it is far more transmissible than the delta variant. The delta variant was much more transmissible than the alpha variant, and we are confident that omicron is significantly more transmissible than delta. We can see this most starkly when looking at how many days it takes for the number of infections to double for each variant. For delta, this was around seven days, but for omicron, based on the latest data from here and around the world, our latest analysis is that it is between two and a half and three days.
This has made the virus an even more formidable foe. Using S-gene drop-out as a reliable proxy for omicron, the rate of drop-out in England is similar to that observed in South Africa. Although there are only 568 confirmed omicron cases in the UK, we know that the actual number of infections will be significantly higher. The UK Health Security Agency estimates that the number of infections is approximately 20 times higher than the number of confirmed cases, so the current number of infections is probably closer to 10,000. UKHSA also estimates that at the current observed doubling rate of between two and a half and three days, by the end of this month, infections could exceed 1 million.
Secondly, we do not yet have comprehensive data on the severity of this virus, but rising rates of hospitalisation in South Africa show that it certainly has the potential to cause harm. In South Africa, the average age is 13 years lower than in the UK, there is a high level of antibodies from natural infection, and it is currently the middle of summer.
Even if severity is lower or the same as delta, high transmissibility means that the omicron variant can still have a severe impact, with the threat of more hospitalisations and unsustainable pressure on the NHS. That would mean an impact not just on covid treatment, but on the non-covid care that we all rely on, such as emergency care if somebody is sadly involved in a serious accident. When we set out plan B, we said that we would act if the NHS was likely to come under unsustainable pressure and was at risk of not being able to provide the care and treatment that people need. The omicron variant has given us cause for concern.
Thirdly, we have been looking closely at what the omicron variant means for our vaccination programme. New laboratory data that has emerged in the last 24 hours suggests that there is lower immunity against omicron from vaccination when compared with the delta variant, so that two doses of a vaccine is less effective at reducing transmission in the community.
However, early research published today by Pfizer suggests that a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine neutralises the Omicron variant to an extent that is similar to the impact of two doses against the original strain of the virus. It is more important than ever that we get the boosters  that are available to all those who are eligible, and that we keep strengthening the defences that we have built. Today, we have opened booster bookings to 7 million more people in England, so people aged 40 and over and those in high-risk groups will be able to get their booster jab from three months after their second dose.
Another defence is new treatments, which have a huge part to play in protecting the most vulnerable from covid 19, especially those who are immunosuppressed, for whom vaccines may be less effective. Today we have announced plans for thousands of people across the UK to be among the first in the world to access life-saving antivirals through a new national study. People who are at highest risk from the virus—for example, those who are immunosuppressed or cancer patients—will also be able to access treatments outside this study from next Thursday if they have a positive PCR test.
We have built some powerful defences. We have put more boosters in arms than any other country in Europe. We have built a huge national infrastructure for testing, and we are leading the world in the deployment of new treatments. Thanks to these defences and our decision to open up in the summer, rather than the winter, we are much better protected than we were this time last year—and we need this protection now more than ever, because although Omicron is becoming more and more prevalent, over the next few days and weeks we will see the Delta and Omicron variants circulating together. Facing these twin threats without these pharmaceutical defences would have been hard enough, but even with them in place we still face a perilous winter, so unfortunately we need to take steps against the threat of this new variant.
When we were moving down our road to recovery, we looked at four tests to see whether we should proceed to the next stage. The tests are: that the vaccine deployment programme is continuing successfully; that the evidence shows that vaccines are sufficiently effective in reducing hospitalisations and deaths in those vaccinated; that infection rates do not risk a surge in hospitalisations that would put unsustainable pressure on the NHS; and that our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new variants of concern. Unfortunately, the situation is markedly different from the summer, when we were able to open up, so we must take proportionate steps to meet this emerging threat.
These are not measures that any of us wants to take, but these measures give us the best chance of saving lives and protecting our freedom over the next few weeks, and it is precisely because we do not want a lockdown that we are putting these proportionate steps in place now. As we have seen before, if we act early, firmly and decisively, and come down hard on this new Omicron variant, we can avert tougher action later. I know that the news of further measures will be disappointing, of course, for many people, and that every measure comes with a cost. I can assure the House that, in making these decisions, we have taken a wide-ranging view that looks at the impact on not just the NHS, in terms of both covid and non-covid care, but the nation’s education, the economy, life chances and mental health.
I would like to update the House on the measures that we will take to enact plan B. First, we will reintroduce the guidance on working from home. It will be updated to say that only people who cannot work from home should continue to go into their workplace. We know that this has an important part to play in slowing transmission,  both at workplaces and on public transport. Secondly, we will introduce mandatory certification, based on vaccines or tests, for nightclubs and large events. This will reduce the number of unvaccinated, infectious people in venues, which could limit overall transmission.
Thirdly, on face coverings, we will be extending the legal requirement from shops and public transport to all indoor public settings, including attractions and recreation, although hospitality will be exempt, and we will be exempting specific activities where it is not possible or practical to wear a face covering—for example, singing and exercise. We will be laying these regulations tomorrow, to come into force the following day.
Fourthly, as omicron spreads in the community, we will also introduce daily tests for contacts instead of isolation so that we keep people safe while minimising the disruption to daily life.
Fifthly, on communications, we will be urging caution in all our communications on covid-19 and will keep urging people to get their booster doses and to follow the little steps that they can to help get the virus under control. All these measures will be reviewed on 5 January, when we will also update the House, and they will all sunset on 26 January.
Finally, we will also be taking further measures to protect and support adult social care, and we will be updating the House on a package of measures later this week.
It is better to stay a step ahead of the virus, rather than reacting to what it brings—to take control of our response now, rather than waiting for what comes next. Waiting a few weeks would make it easier to explain the need for these measures, but by then it might well be too late, so we need to act now and take these balanced and proportionate steps.
We take these steps with a heavy heart, but we do so confident that we are doing everything in our power to keep our nation safe this winter. We have come so far over the course of this year, thanks to the defences that we have built against this deadly virus. Now, as we face this new threat, we must draw on the same spirit that has got us here, strengthening our defences, and think about what we can do to help get this virus under control. I commend this statement to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I will run this statement for an hour after both Front Benchers have spoken. I will try to get as many Members in as possible, but we will all have to help one another, because the business has to carry on afterwards. In fairness to the Secretary of State, he has taken a bit longer because it was a very important statement, so I suggest that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), takes six minutes rather than the normal five—if he wishes to take it—and I will allow some extra time for the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).

Wes Streeting: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the telephone call that he made to me this afternoon, which I greatly appreciated. On the Opposition side of the House, we have always  put public health before party politics at every point throughout this pandemic, so I want to be clear with the House and the country that Labour will support these measures in the national interest. Let me reassure the Secretary of State that he does not need to compromise with the interests behind him; he has the votes he needs to do what is right by the public, and that is all the reassurance that the country needs.
Let me also agree with the Secretary of State: we do not do this lightly. Restrictions impact on people’s lives, livelihoods and liberties, and we do not take those for granted. We want everyone to be able to enjoy Christmas safely this year, given the trauma of last winter, but the omicron variant is a clear threat and we need swift action to limit its spread.
Let me take the actions outlined in turn. In our opinion, the Government should never have scrapped the guidance on mask wearing, so we support the strengthened guidance. Will the Secretary of State explain whether that extends to hospitality settings? Obviously, he was not able to give me advance sight of his statement, and I totally appreciate why, but if it does not, he ought to elaborate on why that choice was made.
We have always said that people should have the flexibility to work from home, so we also welcome the updated guidance on that. On the introduction of vaccine passports, I am glad that the Government have listened and responded to our proposal that people will also be provided with the option of presenting a negative test. That is exactly the right thing to do. Will the Secretary of State provide reassurance that vaccine passports will not be required to access essential services?
Clearly, in the light of what the Secretary of State has outlined, demand for testing will increase, so will he provide us with the reassurance that we need that the capacity for testing will be there and that tests will be provided for free to ensure that there is proper take-up among the public?
Of course, our greatest tool against the pandemic remains vaccination, so I ask the Secretary of State how he plans to speed up the booster roll-out, which is not hitting the target of half a million vaccines a day and is not currently on track to get everyone boosted by the end of January.
Public health relies on people’s willingness to comply with the rules, which in turn relies on confidence in the people making the rules. The damage the Prime Minister has done to public compliance and public trust in the rules that have governed our lives during the pandemic is incalculable. He has undermined public trust and distracted from key public health messaging at a critical time.
If we needed any proof of that, it was the absence of the Secretary of State from the morning media round today, which he was due to undertake to tell people why taking up the booster was so important. He was not able to do that, not through any fault of his own, but through the actions of the Prime Minister and those closest around him.
The past 24 hours have not been the only example or the only incident that has damaged public trust. The first turning point was the notorious trip to Barnard Castle. We saw the actions of the former Health Secretary  in his office, the former Education Secretary holding his own private party while schools were struggling to get through the end of term and headteachers were on their knees coping with what confronted them, and the Prime Minister himself attempting to get out of having to isolate. Now, of course, we have the footage of the Prime Minister’s own staff laughing on camera and joking about breaking the rules at the No. 10 Christmas party.
It is hard to overstate how much damage that has done and how angry people feel—the businesses that were forced to close; the family weddings that were postponed; the chances to say goodbye at funerals missed; the educators, the key workers, people in the NHS and social care who ran into danger as other people were laughing in their office parties. That is what makes the laughter so stomach-turning; it feels as if they are laughing at us. The question we all need to ask this evening, especially in light of the statement made earlier this afternoon by Allegra Stratton, who has done the right thing, shown she has understood the anger and taken responsibility for what she did, is why it is so difficult for this Prime Minister to own up, take responsibility and admit he was wrong.
I will say two more brief things. The Health Secretary was heckled by his own side this evening, but he is not the risk to public health and this is not a laughing matter. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches need to think and to search their own consciences about whether, at this moment of serious crisis, we have the serious leadership our country needs. If not, they know what to do.
I conclude by saying what the Health Secretary was unable to tell the public this morning: “Get your booster jab as soon as you are able and, if you haven’t already, get your first and second jabs. It is safe, it is effective and it is the best tool we have to protect against the virus.” That is what we are all here to do, and that is why we support this Health Secretary in the national interest.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive approach in the national interest. He asks a number of questions. The face mask requirement includes a number of public indoor settings, but excludes hospitality settings. On the NHS covid pass, I can confirm that certification will not include access to any emergency setting. Tests will remain freely available, whether that is PCR tests for anyone who has any covid-19 symptoms, or very easy access to lateral flow tests, with even more of those available than before to help with some of the measures set out today and to allow people to exercise even more caution in the light of omicron. If perhaps people are visiting loved ones who might be particularly vulnerable, I certainly suggest they take up the opportunity to take a free lateral flow test.
On boosters, it is worth recalling that we already have the most successful booster programme in Europe, with more than 20 million booster shots given throughout the UK to some 35% of the population over the age of 12 and a commitment to offer booster shots to every adult by the end of January. That programme continues. As for what we are doing about it, as well as increasing access to vaccines through new vaccine centres and hubs, mobile vaccine units and in other ways, we will continue to extend eligibility, as we did today. Today’s move, reducing the gap between the second vaccine and  the booster vaccine from six months to three months, has opened up eligibility to millions more people over the age of 40.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s questions about what may or may not have happened at Downing Street, I think that the Prime Minister addressed that issue quite clearly today from the Dispatch Box; and as for his final message about boosters, I wholeheartedly agree.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Jeremy Hunt.

Jeremy Hunt: Disappointing though the statement will be for many people, the Secretary of State has my full and unqualified support. This is not a choice between more and fewer restrictions; it is a choice between taking action early to protect a future lockdown and making such a lockdown inevitable. We all hope that the omicron variant is milder than delta, but if it is not, a failure to act now could cost many lives.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about the social care sector. I know that he will say more about it later this week, but he will have seen the estimate from NHS Providers that 10,000 beds—over 10% of all NHS hospital beds, and more beds than are currently occupied by covid patients—are occupied by people who are fit to be discharged but cannot obtain a care package. Will he provide funds to ensure that all those patients can be discharged, so that the NHS can be ready for any potential spike in new cases?

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the statement. He is right to emphasise that by taking swift, early and proportionate action now, we can potentially avoid further restrictive measures in the future. As I have said, there will be a statement on social care later this week, but I can also give him the assurance that he seeks: the statement will include further measures to help with the discharge of hospital patients who are clinically ready to be discharged.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, Martyn Day.

Martyn Day: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and indeed for advance sight of it, albeit fairly briefly.
Given the time when the press call went out this afternoon, I think that this could have been handled in a way that would have given everyone more opportunities to scrutinise what was happening. That said, I find myself much in agreement with the Secretary of State’s remarks, perhaps more so than many on his own Benches.
One aspect that should concern all of us is the lower immunity from vaccination. That is especially worrying, and I think we need to emphasise that it is still important for people to be vaccinated and, in particular, to get that booster vaccination. I had mine on Sunday, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
England’s plan B does, remarkably, resemble the current arrangements in Scotland—working from home, face coverings and vaccine certificates, all of which measures we have repeatedly advised this Government to adopt. Better late than never; however, I cannot but comment that when my colleagues in Scotland were faced with these choices, they were given a vote on them in the  Scottish Parliament. Likewise, it must now be time for a COBRA meeting to happen finally. How can the Secretary of State think it acceptable not to have held such a meeting with the devolved Governments when this point of restrictions has been reached?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone. He made the important observation that while the emerging data suggests that current vaccines may well be less effective in providing protective immunity, that does not mean that they are ineffective. It is especially important for those who have not had any jabs to have their first vaccination, and for people to have their booster jabs, and the older and more vulnerable people are, the more important that is.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for us to work together. He may well know that I have regular meetings, sometimes more than once a week, with my counterparts across the UK, as does the Prime Minister, who is also the Minister for the Union. That is a well established and, I think, very good way to work together on this pandemic.

Greg Clark: A week ago, the Secretary of State assured me from the Dispatch Box that he would not trigger further restrictions based on a rise in infections which was predicted and, in fact, was always inevitable. He said that
“what matters more than anything is hospitalisations.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 683.]
That data is not available yet, so why has the Secretary of State reversed his position and jumped the gun in this way?

Sajid Javid: That is a very fair question, and it requires a full explanation. There is new data since I was last at this Dispatch Box on the rate and growth in transmissibility, and there is new data, to which I referred in my statement, on the impact of the variant on vaccines. My right hon. Friend will know that if the vaccines were even a little bit less effective, especially against severe disease and therefore against hospitalisation, and if there was also a hugely growing infection rate, a smaller percentage of what would be a much larger number would still result in significant hospitalisations.

Hilary Benn: Could the Secretary of State tell the House what his understanding is of the development of a new vaccine specifically to target omicron and when it might be available? Secondly, can he tell us what the latest evidence is on the protection against this new variant that two doses plus the booster will give to people?

Sajid Javid: From the moment they learned about omicron, the vaccine manufacturers, particularly those that make the so-called mRNA-type vaccines, started work on new omicron-targeting vaccines. It is hard to put a timing on this, not least because the companies themselves are unable to, but it is reasonable to think that they can move very quickly. Some of the conversations I have had suggest that they may well be able to have vaccines ready for trial within weeks. There would obviously have to be a trial to ensure that they were safe and effective, but there may be cases where they could be used in emergency situations. On the question about the two doses and a booster, we do not have reliable data on that at this point. However, the information I referred  to in my statement on the impact of vaccinations showed that South Africans, in this case, who had had two doses of the vaccine and who had also had an infection had a higher level of protection than those who had not had an infection. This suggests that that hybrid outcome, where someone has had an infection and two doses, is not too dissimilar from having a booster shot and that it had a positive outcome.

Graham Brady: It’s déjà vu all over again, isn’t it? I remind the Secretary of State that in March 2020 we were asked to impose restrictions for three weeks while the health service capacity was increased. Can he tell the House how much that capacity has now been increased? Secondly, in moving from a world that last week depended on isolation to one that this week depends on testing, is he saying that the statutory instrument that was approved in this House on Tuesday last week will be rescinded, today or tomorrow?

Sajid Javid: On NHS capacity, since March 2020 there has been a significant increase in ICU capacity. My hon. Friend will know that most beds in hospitals are still for people who need emergency care. There are still approximately 6,000 beds in England taken up by covid patients with the delta variant, and around 4,000 beds that are not available for use because of infection control procedures that are still in place. On the timing of the regulations, I have said that there will be a review on 5 January and that they will all sunset on 26 January. There will be a debate in this House next week on all the regulations, followed by votes.

Naseem Shah: I was part of a vaccine trial for Novavax in Bradford, and the Bradford Hospitals Trust did amazing work on that, but it has still not been approved. My first question is: where are we at with Novavax? Surely we need more vaccines now. Also, will the Secretary of State give us a reassurance that he will still be providing free lateral flow tests and PCR tests continuously?

Sajid Javid: I assure the hon. Lady that there are plenty of vaccines available. We have no issue with vaccine supply, including the booster shots. The lateral flow tests from the UKHSA will be freely available, and there are plenty of them.

Esther McVey: The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reported on the omicron variant:
“All cases for which there is available information on severity were either asymptomatic or mild. No deaths have been reported among these cases so far.”
However we know that, by imposing plan B and bringing in restrictions, there will be an effect on mental health, physical health, jobs, the economy, livelihoods and children’s development. Will the Secretary of State release the data and analysis, upon which this decision was made, on the impact of the omicron variant on the public by, first, implementing plan B and, secondly, by not implementing plan B?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the non-covid health impacts of these measures and of the measures we had in the past. She makes a very fair point about the potential impact on mental health, and we have to accept there will be an impact, but there will also be an impact on the economy and individuals’ education. I accept that point, but I hope she accepts that, to the extent measures are necessary to save lives and to prevent unsustainable pressure on the NHS, it is better to take measures now that might mean bigger, more impactful measures are avoided in future.
On the vaccination data, I referred in my statement to the data that Pfizer published, I believe, today and to a study on transmissibility that was published by the South Africans yesterday. If my right hon. Friend is speaking about other data, I would be happy to know which specific data she is referring to and I will see what more we can publish.

Wendy Chamberlain: When I was on the estate a couple of weeks ago, I was unable to get tested—I had missed the boat—so I had to get lateral flow tests from the local chemist. There was an additional step in which I had to enter a code to get the code to go to the chemist to get my testing kit. That is not the case in Scotland. If we are moving to daily tests for contacts, will we make it easier for people to access lateral flow tests?

Sajid Javid: I will look into whether it can be made even easier for people to access lateral flow tests, but I hope the hon. Lady was reassured when I said that we have plenty of these tests and we will make them as easily available as possible.

Liam Fox: On the evidence we have seen so far, I think it is difficult to justify these extra measures, but I welcome the sensible shift from isolation to daily tests. In the bigger picture, we cannot allow the permanent threat of overloading the NHS to be a reason for maintaining semi-permanent restrictions on our people. What amount of extra capacity has NHS England looked at? Will the Secretary of State publish that data so we can have a cheaper option than recurrent damage to our economy and to people’s quality of life?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased my right hon. Friend welcomes the move from isolation to daily testing. As I said earlier, there is more capacity in the NHS than there was at the start of the pandemic, especially in intensive care, but some of that extra capacity has understandably been taken by the 6,000 or so patients currently in hospital with covid and by the infection prevention and control I mentioned earlier. He is right to say we should be looking for ways to further increase capacity, but I hope he will accept that, whatever that further increase may or may not be—there are plenty of measures in place to try to do that—there will always be a limit.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State will have the support of most reasonable people in this House for measures that will save lives and protect our country from a pandemic that takes many lives. I say in a very supportive way that one of the most effective things we have had are the local outbreak groups in which Members of Parliament and local government  leaders work together to ensure we get real action at the grassroots. We found it to be very effective in Kirklees and Huddersfield, working and conspiring together, week by week, on the most effective way to get our community to get jabbed. Will he assure me that he will give his full backing to these groups?

Sajid Javid: I do, of course, back any working together, whether it is of local government, the NHS or directors of public health, to help to combat this pandemic. They are doing a stellar job across the country, especially on vaccination.

Dr Caroline Johnson: One of the most significant harms over the last 18 months or so of restrictions has been the effect on our children and schoolchildren. I welcome the fact that instead of causing another pingdemic and having teachers and students out of school isolating, the Government have said that children will not need to isolate but will be able to use testing instead. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that will be lateral flow testing and not PCR testing, for which they need an appointment? Can he tell us that we have enough tests if the scale of increase in cases is as he has said, and can he confirm to this House that he will resist any restrictions on schoolchildren?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is nothing more important in our society than our children. As a nation we have, like many other nations, learned a lot during the pandemic about some of the better ways to handle the concerns around the pandemic but better protect our schoolchildren. I am happy to confirm what she has said. If there is a positive case in a child, of course that individual child would isolate like anyone else, but any contacts of that child would not have to isolate. Instead, they can take lateral flow tests, not PCR tests.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Health is devolved in Wales. We already have in place reasonable measures that reflect what needs to be done to protect our communities. If we need to do more to safeguard people’s health in Wales, can the Secretary of State guarantee that his Government will enable sufficient funding to ensure that Welsh businesses get sufficient support to do what is necessary?

Sajid Javid: We work very closely across the UK, and the positive output from that work has been evident throughout the pandemic, especially on vaccinations and antivirals. We will continue to work together and provide whatever support is needed.

Bernard Jenkin: My right hon. Friend obviously understands that these measures will try the patience of the British people. Will he look at the other measures that can suppress the virus, particularly the booster rate? Does he agree that the rate of booster vaccinations is constrained not by supply or demand, but by the capacity of the health service to deliver the vaccines? Will he also, therefore, support integrated care systems that call on military assistance or local authority assistance and want to reopen the mass vaccine sites to accelerate the vaccine programme?

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He is right to point to the huge importance, more than ever, of the pharmaceutical defences—let us call them that—against this pandemic. Top of the list are the vaccines, and especially the booster programme. Although it is already the most successful in Europe, there are a lot more people whom we want to boost. I hope he will agree with me that in doing so, it is not just about the quantity, although that is hugely important; it is about getting through to the most vulnerable people first and making sure that we prioritise them. I should also point out that, as I said in my statement, the antivirals are hugely important pharmaceutical defences. Building on all these things—whether it is the vaccinations with the new hubs, the 10,000 new vaccinators we are hiring, the use of the military or the use of pharmacies more than ever before—will really help us to turbocharge access to those pharmaceuticals.

Barbara Keeley: I want to raise the vital issue of public trust in restrictions during the pandemic. People across this country have followed the rules, even when that meant being separated from loved ones at the end of life, and families not being able to be together at funerals. Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of this country have the right to expect the Government to follow the rules as well? The measures he has just announced rely for compliance on people having trust and confidence in the Government, and that has been shattered by the news of the Downing Street party. How is he going to restore it?

Sajid Javid: Of course everyone should follow the rules—no one is above the rules. The hon. Lady refers to the exchange that took place earlier in Prime Minister’s questions; the Prime Minister set out the Government’s position in that exchange.

David Davis: Where is the evidence that vaccine passports actually work? France introduced them in the summer and now has more cases than it had in the March peak. Austria, Greece and the German states that have used them are in the same position, with more cases. Vaccinated people can still catch and transmit the disease, and there is a sizeable chance that passports will introduce a false sense of security, giving exactly the reverse result to the one the Secretary of State intends, so why is he using them?

Sajid Javid: When we set out plan B for the autumn and winter in respect of the challenges we would face, whether from covid or flu, we set out in that plan how and why we thought vaccine passports could help in certain circumstances. Also, it is not straightforward to compare different countries. Different countries have taken a whole host of different measures at different points in time—for example, there can be huge differences in vaccination rates or in respect of other measures that may or may not be in place—so I caution my right hon. Friend in comparing, for example, France with the UK.

Tahir Ali: What advice does the Secretary of State have for our constituents who have not been able to visit their loved ones in times of illness, death or for a family event like a wedding in Kashmir, Pakistan, India or Bangladesh? Many of them will have planned a visit during the school holidays; do they go ahead with that? If not, what advice does the  Secretary of State have for them? If further restrictions come in once they are over there, that could prevent them from coming back into this country for a length of time. They should not be put through that, especially if the advice is clear from the outset.

Sajid Javid: When it comes to travel measures such as the recent announcements in respect of the red list, I think the hon. Gentleman will understand why the Government took that action to buy time and to try to slow any incursion of this new variant. I am afraid it is just not possible to give a guarantee for any particular country that there will not potentially be any future measures. As he has raised the important issue of travel measures, one thing I would say is that very soon, in the days and weeks that lie ahead, if, as I think is likely, we see many more infections and this variant becomes the dominant variant, there will be less need to have any kind of travel restrictions at all.

Philip Davies: Earlier this week, the Secretary of State came to the Chamber and said, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), that there had been not one single hospitalisation from this new variant. Today, he comes here with his latest in a long line of arbitrary, unnecessary, socialist measures, supported by the socialists on the Opposition Benches. I am sorry that the Secretary of State seems to have gone native so fast and has come forward with this announcement without even doing a cost-benefit analysis. Will he give me any reason at all why I should not tell my constituents to treat these new rules in exactly the same way that No. 10 Downing Street treated last year’s rules?

Sajid Javid: I understand the importance of my hon. Friend’s point. First, we all know that in South Africa, where we believe this variant originated, we are seeing significant hospitalisations of people with the new variant, and they have been doubling on a weekly basis. Also, we know from the history of viruses, and particularly with this pandemic, that there is a lag—sometimes a significant lag—between infection and hospitalisation. It takes time for the virus to incubate and, sadly, in some people that might lead to serious disease, which might mean hospitalisation. It is worth noting that the UK had its very first case of covid-19 back in January 2019 but it was not until, I think, two months later that we experienced the first death.

Hannah Bardell: As an inactivated whole virus candidate, the Valneva vaccine being developed in my Livingston constituency could well have advantages over other vaccines when it comes to the emerging omicron virus. Will the Secretary of State reconsider his disastrous decision to deny the people of these islands a vaccine that may well tackle the further pandemic? The EU can see its value, as it has bought 60 million doses.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady may know that, in making decisions on vaccines, the UK Government take advice from both the vaccine taskforce and the experts on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and I know that they keep all potential vaccine options under review.

Andrew Murrison: Our NHS is not being overwhelmed by covid, nor is it likely to be, but if the Health and Social Care Secretary really believes that it will come under pressure, what is he doing to ensure that novel antivirals, such as sotrovimab and molnupiravir, are freely available now to treat people, as we know that they will reduce hospitalisation and death by up to 80%?

Sajid Javid: We have secured, I believe, some 180,000 doses of new antivirals. There are two main antivirals that are specifically designed to work against covid-19. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, we are starting a national study that will help us to roll these out and make them targeted and effective. For those who are immunosuppressed and have a positive PCR test, we will be able to use them very shortly.

Diana R. Johnson: Many parts of the country have a lot of jobs that are impossible to do from home. I am thinking of factories and manufacturing jobs, many of which are in Hull. Hull also has below average vaccination rates, so will the Secretary of State say what more we can do to support areas such as that, and would not one start be to improve statutory sick pay?

Sajid Javid: It is important that sick pay begins from day one, but in terms of supporting areas—whether it be Hull or others—the right hon. Lady is right to point to the importance of the vaccination programme. The measures that we are taking, especially to help with the booster programme, including bringing on board more pharmacies, more hospital hubs and help from the military, will all help to increase access.

Mark Harper: Having looked very carefully at the evidence and listened to what the Secretary of State said, I have to say that the initial evidence on omicron does not support the introduction of these measures, because the protection against serious disease remains strong. If the Secretary of State’s fears are confirmed, there is no exit strategy from the measures that he has set out; we will end up having to introduce them permanently. What I am really concerned about is that it is unquestionably the case that, over the past couple of weeks, the Government’s credibility—whether it is on Paterson or on the Christmas parties—has taken a hit. Why should people at home, listening to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, do things that people working in No.10 Downing Street are not prepared to do?

Sajid Javid: When it comes to the exit strategy—this is a very important question from my right hon. Friend—a number of factors are at play. The one that I would point to that is possibly the most important is the pharmaceutical defences that I referred to earlier, particularly the booster programme. Whatever emerging evidence there is on vaccine efficacy against omicron, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that, at this stage, a booster dose gives significantly more protection, and the more booster doses that we have in arms will certainly help with the exit strategy. As for the comment that my right hon. Friend made about activities that may or may not have taken place in Downing Street, I refer him to the comments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made earlier today.

Geraint Davies: In the United Kingdom, there are 45,000 infections a day. In Japan, there are just 200 infections a day, because people in Japan understand that they do not have the right to put other people at avoidable risk. Will the Secretary of State consider extending what he is saying to introduce vaccine passports and testing at pubs, because I for one do not want to go into a pub where I can be infected by someone who is not vaccinated. Secondly, will he look to introduce masks into schoolrooms for older children? Let us get to grips with this.

Sajid Javid: When it comes to case numbers, we should be cautious about making straightforward comparisons between countries, not least because different countries have different ways to measure infection and different capacity. Regarding the measures to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, what we have set out today is proportionate and balanced.

Miriam Cates: This morning, the think-tank Bright Blue published polling showing that 11% of those working from home during the pandemic experienced domestic abuse, compared to just 1% of those not working from home, and that 27% of disabled home workers reported domestic abuse in the same period. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the physical, emotional and psychological cost of this work from home mandate to some of the most vulnerable women in our communities?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the non-covid impact of these measures, which I mentioned earlier. She is right to point to emotional distress and mental health issues, but I hope she agrees that, for the reasons I set out earlier, if we do not take these measures, the impact on the very people about whom she rightly cares deeply could be especially challenging.

Ben Bradshaw: Following the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), given that omicron is now spreading rapidly here, what is the point in maintaining his damaging travel restrictions a day longer?

Sajid Javid: As I mentioned earlier, we will keep that under review.

Steve Brine: It is clear to me that “learn to live with covid” is now as dead as the zero-covid proponents want it to be. I am pleased about the change from isolation to daily tests, as that will avoid a dangerous pingdemic, but may I ask my right hon. Friend about the “papers please” mandatory certification world that we are now moving into, with respect to young people? Does he consider young people to be in possession of a vaccine passport if they are double vaccinated, which of course many are not yet able to be; and how will they be able to prove their status given that they cannot do so through a digital vaccine passport and are having huge problems accessing any other form of vaccine passport through their primary care centres?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that my hon. Friend welcomes the move from isolation to daily testing. On his questions about the NHS covid pass, the requirement and definition of vaccination will be two jabs—a first and second dose—but I hope that he welcomes the fact that it is that or a negative lateral flow test.

Mark Hendrick: Does the Secretary of State feel that the important messages and measures that he has announced today will be undermined by the fact that we have a Prime Minister who does not lead by example, and who has a cavalier attitude towards mask wearing, particularly in places such as hospitals—as well as the issue of the alleged parties that have taken place at No. 10? Is it not one rule for him and another for everybody else?

Sajid Javid: The Prime Minister has addressed both those issues.

Richard Drax: My right hon. Friend keeps referring to South Africa, but it does not have the same level of vaccination as we do here. This country is just getting back on its feet, and today hope and freedom—our freedoms—are being taken away again, on the basis of what a variant might, not does, do. These variants will continue to hit us for years to come, and this country cannot go on reacting to them in the way in which we are doing, when there is no evidence to support what my right hon. Friend has said today.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that South Africa has a much lower level of vaccination—I believe it is around 25%—but there are other differences between South Africa and the UK, including that the vast majority of South Africans have antibodies against covid through infection. Not only do they have antibodies through infection, but a huge number of South Africans have antibodies through infection from the beta variant. It is important to know that the beta variant is much closer to the omicron variant, and it is quite possible that it might be giving an even higher degree of protection than people have in countries such as the UK, with vaccination against the Wuhan strain.

Debbie Abrahams: I welcome a precautionary response given the emerging data. By introducing these measures to slow down the doubling of the rate from two to three days to five to six days, we will enable more people to get vaccinated, which is very important. Will the Secretary of State authorise the immediate roll-out of the directors of public health float stock PCR pilot to help tackle omicron clusters before they become significant outbreaks?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes these measures, which will certainly help to slow down the growth of omicron. I will look at the measure that she referred to.

Nickie Aiken: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House to make this statement this evening and showing this place the respect that it deserves and expects. The hospitality sector has had a huge hit over the past 18 months because of the covid pandemic. In the past two weeks, following the omicron travel restrictions, we have seen a 25% cancellation rate in bars, restaurants and hotels in central London. Can he give assurances that whatever measures the Government introduce in the short term really will be short term, and that we will be able to get back to normal as soon as possible to support the hospitality sector?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I am happy to give that assurance. My hon. Friend may want to know that the mandatory certification will apply to entertainment venues that have more than 10,000 seated people, 4,000-plus outdoor or 500 indoor, so a lot of the types of venues she refers to will be excluded, and also the requirement on mandatory face coverings will exclude hospitality settings.

Andrew Slaughter: Many constituents have contacted me today outraged by the antics at No. 10 Downing Street. One, a young man of 14, was unable to attend the funeral of his much-loved grandfather during last Christmas’s lockdown. He wants me to ask the Government this: is the Prime Minister heartless and cruel enough not to tell the country the truth and apologise to us all? How will the Secretary of State, at this crucial time, regain the trust of my constituent and that of millions of others that the Prime Minister has lost by his disgraceful conduct?

Sajid Javid: I am very sorry to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. Of course there will be many people across the country who found themselves in such an awful situation. In terms of what he refers to about what may or may not have happened in Downing Street, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed that from the Dispatch Box earlier today.

Christopher Chope: It is often said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the so-called war against covid-19, truth is indeed the casualty? In his statement he used expressions such as “could”, “can”, “potential”, “suggests” and “might”. Does that not show that there is no justification for these restrictions upon liberty?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend will know that when it comes to, in this case, a new variant, or viruses more generally that are new in some way, there are uncertainties —there always will be. I do not think a new infection is going to come along and we will have all the answers to all the questions we would logically have on day one. But I hope he agrees in terms of what we do know. For example, I said in my statement that we are confident about the transmissibility—the growth rate—of this, and I hope he will respect that.

David Linden: It is quite clear from the tone of the Health Secretary’s comments tonight that things are going to get worse before they get better, and that we are in something of a holding position. Can he confirm that the Chancellor was involved in initiating plan B and that the Government, and indeed the Treasury, will again do whatever it takes in terms of generosity in financial support to those most vulnerable in our communities?

Sajid Javid: I can confirm that the Chancellor, and indeed every member of the Cabinet, is fully behind these decisions.

Anthony Mangnall: A few weeks ago, Nicola Sturgeon produced a 70-page report that outlined whether or not coronavirus vaccine certificates actually worked. That report presented absolutely evidence, so where is the Secretary of State getting his evidence? The Office for National Statistics published a report saying that the fact that 95% of English and Welsh adults have  antibodies should also be a consideration, far above what is going on in South Africa. If there is a severity document published in the next few weeks that shows that transmission is lower than expected, will we see an end to these measures? If I can sing in a club, drink in a pub and not have to go to work with colleagues, why are the Government pursuing a completely illogical process?

Sajid Javid: During the next few days, when we have the debate in Parliament and a vote next week, we will set out more of the data. In terms of one of my hon. Friend’s key questions about what happens should the data change or we get more evidence that suggests that omicron is less severe or its impact on the vaccines is not what it seems at this point, we will not hesitate to act and remove these restrictions.

Imran Hussain: I thank the Health Secretary for his timely update to the House today. I am still somewhat unclear as to what additional support is available for individuals and businesses as a result of his announcement. In particular, can he ensure that enough support is made available for those businesses where people will now have to work from home?

Sajid Javid: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that with the measures set out today, which are essentially the plan B measures that were the contingency plan the Government set out to this House two or three months ago, although there will be some impact on some businesses, that should be minimal. The extent to which any further support needs to be provided will be kept under review.

Jane Stevenson: While I realise that the Secretary of State has a difficult call to make, the symptoms of this do seem mild, and I remain to be convinced that the measures are necessary. My constituents in Wolverhampton North East have put up with an enormous amount over the pandemic. Can he reassure them, in the light of these measures, that at least they can make solid plans for the Christmas and new year period to see their family and their friends, whether at home or in our hospitality industry? Can he reassure them about their right to include family members who are resident in care homes?

Sajid Javid: May I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to one of my right hon. Friends earlier, that even if the symptoms turn out to be less impactful than delta, if we see the growth we are seeing and we get to the kind of numbers that I mentioned earlier, it would be a smaller percentage in terms of severity, but of a much larger number? I ask my hon. Friend to take that into account and the impact that might have on her constituents. I also hope she accepts that by taking these proportionate and balanced measures now, we are in a much better place to avoid any further measures in the future.

Rachel Hopkins: The Secretary of State spoke about communications being a key part of his statement. We know that good communications are not just about what someone says, but what they do. Does he accept that the Government have lost the moral authority to ask our constituents and the people of this country to follow all the rules, given that the Government having parties last Christmas in No. 10 blatantly showed disregard for the rules?

Sajid Javid: As I said in response to a question earlier, whatever the rules—whether for this pandemic or anything else—they apply equally to everyone. With regard to Downing Street, as the Prime Minister has said today, there will be an investigation, and we should all await the outcome of that.

Julian Lewis: If bed capacity is the problem, were we right to close the Nightingale wards, and are they available for reopening? If so, does he expect to have to reopen them?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that we will be taking measures to increase substantially capacity in the NHS. He will know that it is not just about beds, whether Nightingale or elsewhere, but having the right amount and type of workforce to help with those beds.

Tim Farron: We have a range of measures put in front of us, some of which will perhaps help a little bit, but will not actively control the virus very much, coupled with a colossal attack on civil liberties, which is a strange juxtaposition. Can I ask the Secretary of State to pay special attention to something that the Government have overlooked too much over the past two years, which is to invest in catching up with cancer? What the Government have done through this period is do a great job on vaccine roll-out, but I would love to see them show the same ringfenced dedication and commitment to catching up with cancer, given that we know that at least 50,000 additional people will lose their lives as a consequence of the covid situation.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the importance of cancer and he will know that it remains a priority for the NHS. That is one reason why recently, when the Government set out the extra catch-up funding for the NHS over the next three years to pay for a lot more elective operations and diagnosis, cancer was a priority in that.

Pauline Latham: As in South Africa, many people in this country have had covid, particularly young people and school age children. Can my right hon. Friend tell us what is the estimation of that in this country? He must be aware that while he was delivering his statement, in No. 10, Chris Whitty was saying that hospitalisations and deaths have gone down, so why are we having a kneejerk reaction today when we were not going to do it until Monday at the earliest? We should have waited.

Sajid Javid: I am happy to answer that. Thankfully, hospitalisations have fallen in recent weeks; they are at roughly 6,000 in English hospitals at the moment. Although they have fallen, however, the numbers are still relatively high. It is good and encouraging that they are falling, but all those hospitalisations at this time are to do with the delta variant. With omicron, as I mentioned in response to a previous question, there will be a lag between infections and hospitalisation. With delta, that has often been about 10 or 12 days, or even longer. We are not quite sure what it will be with omicron, but we know that there will be a lag. The history of the pandemic has always backed that up.

Mick Whitley: This week, the TUC published research showing that more than 600,000 workers in hospitality, retail and entertainment do not qualify for statutory sick pay. That workforce is especially at risk over the busy Christmas period and the lack of support available to those workers means that they risk going without income at Christmas if they are infected with covid-19. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a scandal that so many people go without such basic protection in the workplace? Will the Government commit to ensuring that every worker in the UK is entitled to sick pay that at least matches the national minimum wage?

Sajid Javid: That is another important issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that sick pay begins from day one and that there is a hardship fund to help with the most difficult situations.

Alicia Kearns: My right hon. Friend will not wish to move too slowly, but I am struggling to understand how we have come to this decision a week before the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory reports on the omicron variant. One in five critically ill patients in ICU is an unvaccinated pregnant woman—not one fully vaccinated pregnant woman has ended up in ICU. What is he doing to ensure that we do not see a catastrophe over winter with the loss of young life and of mothers?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of vaccinating everyone, and especially to the risk to pregnant women. A huge amount of work has gone on in the last few months to reach out to even more pregnant women. A new campaign launched in the last few days and we have already seen a positive response to it. As she says, sadly, almost all the women who are pregnant and in hospital because of covid are unvaccinated.
To refer to the start of my hon. Friend’s question, I think she was suggesting that we wait a week. I hope that she can reflect that, based on the doubling time that we have now observed, that would make a substantial difference to infections, and can take into account the lag between infections and hospitalisation.

Toby Perkins: Throughout the covid crisis, the Government have continually had to take draconian steps because they took those steps too late. I welcome the fact that the Health Secretary is attempting to get ahead of it this time, because it means that the steps being taken are not as bad as they were last Christmas, which is really important. Mask wearing is important and it is regrettable that it had been stopped on public transport previously. Does it not undermine his message on mask wearing that, when he is making his statement, 21 Conservative Members are not wearing masks in this crowded place?

Sajid Javid: I think the approach that we have taken to mask wearing, which I have set out, is the right one.

Craig Mackinlay: We seem to be on a slippery slope towards lockdown based on precisely no real data, which is a worry. It seems to be the precautionary principle gone completely mad. However, I will give my right hon. Friend credit in that I am very pleased that daily testing is going to replace the self-isolation  proposed just a week ago. I am sorry to say to my right hon. Friend that he is looking a little silly on these things as we shilly-shally between different rules. Could he answer me this: is he proposing a reformulation of the vaccine and then keeping these or similar restrictions in place for the period until that new vaccine is in arms, then in a year’s time when we get a new variant, we do it all over again ad nauseam—like a stuck record, only more annoying?

Sajid Javid: First, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that one of the reasons for these measures is precisely to avoid a lockdown. We all want to see a lockdown avoided for all the obvious reasons, and taking the right proportionate measures now will certainly help to do that. On the vaccine, I am not proposing reformulation. I think the most important thing right here and now, and more important than even before, is the booster programme—not a reformulation, but getting a third shot to boost everyone’s immunity. On the future, where I see vaccines going is multi-variant vaccines, a number of which are already being developed. Just as we see that with flu, I am sure we will see that with covid.

Alex Sobel: Mr Speaker, I am sure you, the Health Secretary and everybody in the House would like to thank the South African scientists for their early work and discovery of the omicron variant. If we are to avoid more variants in the future, it is really important that we have a high level of vaccination not just in the UK, but everywhere in the world. Is it not our duty, as a country that produces vaccines, to ensure that countries such as South Africa and others have high levels of vaccine, and that we end the Government policy of vaccine nationalism?

Sajid Javid: First, I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the South Africans for their huge efforts with respect to this variant, recognising how they have worked with the world, including us, on it. I think the way they have reacted to this is nothing but exemplary. However, I would have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on referring to the Government’s approach as vaccine nationalism. We have already given more than 20 million doses to COVAX and bilateral doses, and there are another 9 million or so ready to go.

Henry Smith: Last month, the aviation and travel sectors were showing real signs of recovery from the covid-19 pandemic restrictions. Their reimposition has seriously dented confidence in people being able to travel, and that is having a direct impact on jobs in an industry that is already on its knees. What discussions have been had in Government about reintroducing support packages for critical sectors of the UK economy, without which we will not have the economic recovery to be able to pay for the public services we need?

Sajid Javid: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the best support we could provide for the transport sector right now is to remove these recent restrictions. I am confident that, as we learn more about this variant  and if, as is expected, over time it becomes the dominant variant, we can start removing those restrictions very quickly.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and I believe his response reflects the seriousness of the current covid disease levels. Has there been any opportunity to speak directly to the Health Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the regulations put in place here in Westminster may be considered for Northern Ireland, so that all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can together combat and defeat the latest omicron variant?

Sajid Javid: We do work very closely together across the Union, and I have regular contact with my counterpart in Northern Ireland. I have not been able to discuss these particular measures with him today, but I know that we will do so shortly.

Luke Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for coming to this House first, and for providing a copy of his statement. In it, he said that
“we will introduce mandatory certification, based on vaccines or tests, for nightclubs and large events.”
Could he explain if this will look like the Euros, when people had to present whether or not they had had a test? Failing that, if we are to have mandatory certification, which is the concern for Conservative Members, will there be an explicit vote on the regulations?

Sajid Javid: The NHS covid pass already has an in-built capability to allow for either a vaccination or the result of a negative lateral flow test, and next week there will be a debate on these regulations and a vote.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: The final question is from Liz Twist.

Liz Twist: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State rightly emphasised the importance of vaccines, but the Government have fallen short of their target to offer all 12 to 15-year-olds the vaccine by October, so what will he do to ensure that programme is speeded up and rolled out?

Sajid Javid: We recently took measures to increase take-up among that age group by allowing those children, with their parents or guardians, to use the national booking system and the walk-in facilities, and that has certainly helped boost take-up.

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the Health Secretary’s announcement about the guidance that people should work from home wherever possible, are you able to say anything to the House about what will happen to Parliament before we rise on 16 December?

Mark Harper: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we established when debating these measures before that it was essential for the proper conduct of business and for Ministers to be held to account that we attended Parliament in person to make sure that the right decisions were made for the British people, and I very much hope that will continue.

Lindsay Hoyle: I have only just heard the statement and have not had time to reflect on it, but there is a Commission meeting on Monday. I am also having a discussion later tonight with officials of the House, but obviously a matter for the Chamber is also for others rather than just myself. However, I do take the point.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Debate resumed.

Robert Largan: First, I associate myself with the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), two experienced former rail Ministers who set out why they welcome the integrated rail plan while perhaps hoping that it had gone further in some areas. I completely agree with every word of both of their speeches.
One area of the IRP that I really welcome is the continued commitment to the £137 million upgrade to the Hope Valley line running between Manchester and Sheffield. That is important for several reasons. First, the line is one of the worst performing in the country in terms of reliability and punctuality, so this extra capacity to improve reliability and frequency and help freight get out of the quarries and into market is a really positive step, along with, finally, the retirement of the Pacers and their replacement by the new class 195 trains, and the much-needed reforms to rail franchising. That £137 million investment in our railways, combined with the £228 million new Mottram bypass and Glossop spur road, which is due to start construction in 2023, represents the biggest investment in transport infrastructure in the High Peak in my lifetime at least.
On top of that, it is important to ensure that local passengers on the stopping stations on the Hope Valley line, such as Hope, Edale, Bamford, New Mills and Chinley, also benefit from this, and that we link up the bus services from those stations to destinations. That is why the Hope Valley explorer bus pilot is such a positive step forward. I also welcome the commitment to look at electrification of the line.
I also want to talk about HS2, which benefits the High Peak directly. I am very pleased that the western leg and extension is going ahead. That will free up capacity on the Stockport corridor of the west coast main line through to Manchester Piccadilly, a big bonus for those travelling there from places including Buxton, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith and New Mills.
However, we do need to go further. That is why I continue to campaign for a railway station for Gamesley, one of the most deprived places in the country. It has one of the lowest car ownership rates but atrocious transport links, including a bus service that ends at 5 o’clock in the evening. That desperately needs sorting out. We also need to replace the loss of the 236 bus, which means that at the moment people in Glossop have no connection and no direct bus route through to Tameside Hospital and Ashton College. I really hope that gets fixed too.
Overall, there are lots of really positive things in the integrated rail plan for us to welcome. I would like to see it go further in other places, but the key now is that we get on and deliver it, and that we get spades in the ground as soon as possible. I look forward to the start of the construction of the upgrade to the Hope Valley line within the next few months.

Tim Farron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), who made a thoughtful contribution concerning his constituency.
The integrated rail plan for the north is a real disappointment to many people, not least people from Cumbria, the furthest north-west county in England. When we leaf through the 162 pages of that document, we find not a single mention of the county of Cumbria. That is a reminder that when we talk about the north and levelling up the north, it feels to many of us that the rural north—rural communities generally, but specifically those in the far north-west of England—is not thought of and is very much overlooked.
The cancellation of part of HS2 is deeply troubling, but of course the more troubling cancellation is that of Northern Powerhouse Rail. If one understands the north of England, one understands that what we really need is not to get to London a bit quicker, but to have greater capacity and to get from east to west more quickly. That has been overlooked by the Government. It is a betrayal of the north, yes, but more than that it is a betrayal of their lack of understanding of the north, which is more telling.
I want to focus on a couple of things in my community. First, we appreciate that the HS2 line is not going to go further into Lancashire and into Cumbria, but nevertheless the trains will. I am deeply concerned that there are no plans for any of those HS2 trains to stop in the biggest visitor destination in the country apart from London, namely my constituency—the Lake district. That should be put right.
We have a railway line from the main line at Oxenholme that takes us to Windermere—the Lakes line. It is a very short line, and it would be one of the cheapest electrifications in the country if only it were done. Sadly, the Government have cancelled that. I am, however, encouraged by recent conversations with the Rail Minister about the possibility of a passing loop at Burneside, which would give us the opportunity to effectively dual the line again—that was our Beeching cut back in the ’60s and ’70s. Doing that would double the capacity on the Lakes line and massively increase the number of people who could come to the Lake district and not come by car. That would be a huge positive.
It is worth bearing in mind that there are many small things that are huge to us. At Staveley, the first station in the Lake district, there are 42 steps to get up to the station. Friends of mine who have disability issues, are elderly or need to use prams simply cannot use their local station, so I call on the Government to consider very carefully funding access to Staveley station.
We have a world-class visitor destination in the Lake district, with what feels at the moment like a third-class rail connection. That is why I ask, finally, that the Government reconsider the electrification of the line from Oxenholme to Windermere, and of the Furness line from Lancaster to Barrow through my constituency. That would be a positive, carbon-neutral thing to do, and it would be a massive boost to tourism and to local communities. It would be a good, effective use of public money after this disappointment.

Ruth Edwards: I feel privileged to speak in this debate, not simply because this fantastic £96 billion investment in rail is transformational for  huge swathes of our country, and not just because we have sped up existing plans by around 15 years to bring real benefits to places such as my constituency of Rushcliffe. No—I feel particularly privileged because this debate gives us the chance to examine the habits and the utterances of that rare species, the Starma chameleon.
For years, the Leader of the Opposition has manned the barricades in opposition to HS2. He said that he opposes HS2
“on cost and on merit: it will not achieve its stated objectives.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 1006.]
He called its impact devastating and said it would cause “wholly unacceptable damage”. However, all of a sudden, the Government have not gone far enough. Suddenly he believes that the plans are
“a second-class option for the North”
and the midlands. If the Leader of the Opposition had had his way, the people of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Birmingham and Sheffield would not have had high-speed rail at all, but perhaps it only matters when it is in his own backyard—hardly prime ministerial.
The integrated rail plan delivered on a commitment to level up regional connectivity by electrifying the midland main line, and electrification work is set to begin in the next phase, before Christmas. These improvements will be welcomed by my constituents, who, because of the plan, will find it a lot easier to commute and undertake other travel by train. Indeed, in my inbox, praise for this plan far outweighs criticism. As the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) have said—in fact, as has been said repeatedly—the last Labour Government electrified 63 miles of track in 13 years. An ordinary British garden snail moving at a top speed of 0.048 kph would have made more progress.
Colleagues may be surprised to hear that the Leader of the Opposition and I have something in common: we both represent constituencies containing planned HS2 stations, the only difference being that I did not petition against this massive upgrade to, and investment in, rail in my constituency. The integrated rail plan will deliver HS2 faster. It will slash train journey times between London and Nottingham by two thirds, and the journey time from Nottingham to Birmingham to only 26 minutes, which is half an hour faster than envisaged under previous plans. It will deliver HS2 right into the heart of the East Midlands freeport, where we are making a green jobs hub that will create over 60,000 jobs in the region.

Cat Smith: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the disintegrated rail plan. I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron); I agree wholeheartedly with his points about rail connectivity outside the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds corridor, and across Lancashire and Cumbria. It so often feels as though that part of the north is forgotten about. Just because we do not have big cities, it does not mean that we do not have jobs and industry, and a need for connectivity. Indeed, we have some very good projects that lend themselves to reasonably cheap electrification, which would help lower the carbon footprint of our public transport system.
I will keep my remarks tightly focused on lines affected in my constituency. I must be clear: if HS2 ever gets as far north as us in Lancashire and Cumbria, which seems like something of a long shot, we cannot have trains not stopping in Lancaster. It is the county town of Lancashire. We have world-class universities and industries that need rail connectivity to the capital, and we need that investment. We cannot keep talking about rail connectivity as meaning getting to London faster. We must also talk about investing in the north and in our communities.
I want to talk about Fleetwood, a town without a railway station, though it has been promised one. In November 2019, the Prime Minister came to Poulton-le-Fylde—and later got it muddled up with Bolton, but we will move on from that. He promised us that its rail line would be reconnected. We are still waiting. We have had £100,000 for a plan, but so far, there is no indication that the line will materialise. I encourage the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is on the Front Bench —a Lancashire guy—to look favourably on Fleetwood, and to work with us and the local community to make that rail line happen.
I finish with some words from my constituents, because all too often the real impact is on constituents’ lives. Mark Waites asks, “Where’s the railway?” That is probably the No. 1 question that I am asked as a local MP—where is our railway in Fleetwood? The track bed is there, but there are no trains running up and down it. Jack Harrison offered me a festive quote to share in the debate:
“Now all we want for Christmas, is our trains back;
And no more empty election yackity yack.”
That sums up the feeling across Fleetwood, and right across the Fylde coast, about the promises that the Government have made, but not delivered on. We have been promised that railway back.
“Now that the Prime Minister knows where Fleetwood is, will he finally say when the railway connection will be reinstated to Poulton and the rest of the country?”
That is a quote from my constituent Tony Johnson. I urge the Minister to look favourably at Lancashire and Cumbria, and to offer us the rail connection that we have been promised.

Ben Bradley: It is easy for us as Members of Parliament to stand here and say that we want more—that we want it faster, bigger and that we want more money—because that is what we do. No doubt we will draw a line under the integrated rail plan and will come back next week and say that we want more for the next train line and the next plan. We would probably do ourselves a disservice if we did not do that—it is important—but it does not mean that this is not an excellent plan and an excellent investment in our region.
The integrated rail plan commits £12.8 billion of investment to the east midlands. That is probably more than we have had since the M1 was built, I would imagine, if that even cost that amount of money.

Lee Anderson: This investment of £12.8 billion is a massive package. Is it true to say that, as the leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, he is now responsible for one of the biggest packages in the midlands?

Ben Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. Nottinghamshire’s package is indeed huge and we are very proud of it. It is absolutely right to say that Nottinghamshire is one of the most benefitted places, if that is correct English—it is probably not—from the entire plan. The bulk of that £12.8 billion will connect Nottingham to Birmingham, reducing that journey time to less than half an hour. That will bring the whole of the west midlands into commutable distance for much of Nottingham and south Nottinghamshire, changing the lives of all sorts of people across our county, because it will draw in a whole new swathe of businesses and opportunities for people across the region.
Government have listened to us throughout this discussion. We have heard from Opposition Members about things being cancelled and scrapped, but when we have engaged constructively with the Government and Ministers on this, they have recognised our local priorities and delivered for us. We all understand the need and the wish to connect cities, and connecting Nottingham and Derby to Birmingham is really important. However, when we spoke with Ministers and officials, they understood the economic priorities for the region and the county, the importance of Toton as a hub for job creation and what was said about local residents being able to access jobs. They listened and included that in the plan. I am very grateful for the understanding and really positive engagement that we have had with Government. That is the part that provides the levelling up for my constituents.

Toby Perkins: I am rather confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. On 30 September, he and the leader of Leeds City Council wrote to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to say that levelling up would
“fall at the first hurdle”
without HS2. Less than three months later, the hon. Gentleman is back here saying that he welcomes these plans, which many of us in the midlands and the north see as an utter betrayal.

Ben Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that I have always petitioned Government for the greatest possible investment in our region. I have always said that HS2 was important, and I continue to believe that that is the case. That is why I am delighted that we are getting a new HS2 connection from Birmingham to Nottingham and that it delivers on the Toton priority that we have been pushing as a county and as a region. And it is why I will continue to push Government over the next 18 months to make sure that we get that certainty between the east midlands and Sheffield, so that we get those journey times and the connectivity. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has said many times, many of my residents would rather see a local connection that they can use to access jobs and economic growth, rather than a fast train that flies past their town. Government have listened to our priorities and I am very grateful for that.
The Toton part is what is important for my Mansfield constituents, because it will allow them to get on a new train line—the Maid Marian line or the Robin Hood line that will go through my constituency—that will link Warsop in my constituency to the rail network for the first time in about 50 years, and it will allow them to get a direct train to thousands of new jobs. There will be a new hub for economic growth at Toton and there is  already significant interest in investment in that. It will benefit the county and help us to join together the economies of the east midlands, in Derby and Nottingham, and that will be hugely beneficial for the levelling-up agenda.
For me, levelling up means, in short, providing better quality jobs to residents who do not have access to them and making sure that those communities have the skills and transport links to be able to access them and improve their life chances. That is key, and it is a long-term goal. The IRP commits and supports that goal absolutely, because it provides the economic epicentre for us as a county and connects the most disadvantaged communities to it, so I welcome that.
If I have one ask from Government, it is that the IRP also commits to introducing and accelerating a development vehicle for the east midlands—our east midlands development corporation. That is absolutely key to the delivery of those outcomes at Toton and to the rail connections that surround it. We need specifics on that, a process, funding and a way of bringing that in to accelerate growth, so that we can get improved delivery times, which the Minister mentioned.
I absolutely welcome the review, the integrated rail plan and this debate. Notts MPs are here in force to support the plan because it is hugely beneficial to our county and our constituencies, so I commend the Government for bringing it forward.

Matt Rodda: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I start by offering my wholehearted support to the shadow Transport Secretary, who has made an excellent contribution this afternoon, as have many other hon. Members across the House.
I feel deeply sorry for many communities across the midlands and the north of England, because they have clearly been badly let down by the Government. I know the rail Minister is a decent, hardworking Minister, and I am sure even he is disappointed with this rather thin offering—the way Nottinghamshire has been let down, the way the north-west of England has been let down, the way Bradford and Sheffield have been let down. They have all been badly let down by the Government, I am afraid, and indeed colleagues in London are about to be severely let down with the looming crisis in Transport for London, where the Government are clearly unable to do the decent thing and provide the right level of support to vital transport infrastructure in the capital.
All those things bode very badly for our country at a time when we need more investment and more economic growth. High-speed rail is clearly a driver of significant economic growth and regeneration for major cities and smaller towns, such as my Reading constituency, and offers huge advantages to communities across the country.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a number of points in my own area. In particular, I call for greater Government focus on electrification of the Great Western line to the west of Reading; at present the electric line stops at Newbury, which is clearly not far enough to the west. Indeed, the far south-west is not served by adequate rail infrastructure at this time. The electric line also stops in Cardiff, Wales, and Welsh colleagues have mentioned the serious flaws with that lack of investment in their country.
In addition, the north-south line that connects the south coast of England with the midlands and ultimately Manchester should be a priority for electrification. It is currently a narrow rail corridor with only one line going north and one going south. There are real issues there, but electrification offers greater efficiency, lighter rolling stock, much faster speeds on the railway and a more efficient railway all round. It requires more up-front investment, but it pays back great dividends in future. Many colleagues from Coventry and other midlands cities have mentioned that to me.
I realise time is limited, but I also draw the Minister’s attention to a number of other issues, particularly Reading Green Park station in the neighbouring seat of Reading West, which also serves my constituents who commute to work in the science park at Green Park on the west of Reading. We also need investment in other stations across Berkshire. I draw his attention to the need for the Western Rail Link, another crucial piece of rail infrastructure in the Thames valley that offers wider benefits to people from across the country. I appreciate that he is interested in the project, and I urge him to speak to local councils, myself and other MPs such as the shadow rail Minister on that point.
I realise time is pressing, but I would like to make a couple of other very brief points. Will the Minister also—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am sorry, but not with one second gone. I call Lee Anderson.

Lee Anderson: Now then—another Opposition day debate and another chance for the Labour party to demonstrate to my constituents in Ashfield and Eastwood how out of touch it is. Most residents in Ashfield, including a lady called Sue Hey, were delighted and breathed a sigh of relief when the integrated rail plan was published a few weeks ago with the news in it that the eastern leg of HS2 had been scrapped.
The eastern leg of HS2 would have come through the edge of my constituency and it would have been a case of, “You can see it, but you can’t use it.” What they can already see in my constituency is the Robin Hood line and the proposed Maid Marian line, which I have lobbied for since being elected to this place. The new Maid Marian line will see rail passenger services returned to the rural parts of Ashfield for the first time in nearly 50 years, with new train stations at Kings Mill Hospital and at Selston. That is what we call real levelling up in the north and midlands.
I was fortunate enough to be quoted by the Prime Minister in the IRP when I pointed out that many of my constituents are more interested in good local transport links than in the eastern leg of HS2. What we now have is a first-class regional package of £12 billion, and the good news is that we have a new batch of Conservative MPs who will ensure that that investment is delivered in Nottinghamshire and the east midlands.

Ben Bradley: I think my hon. Friend has underestimated the size of his package, because the amount for the east midlands comes to a total of £12.8 billion. Indeed, his package is much larger than even he thought it was.

Lee Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will not get into an argument over regional packages during this debate. That is another conversation.
Let us remember that until a few years ago, the red wall seats like Ashfield had several things in common. They had above-average deprivation, failing town centres, lower life expectancy, poor transport links and lower aspirations; but the main thing that places like Ashfield, Mansfield and Bolsover had in common was Labour MPs and Labour-run councils. What a shocking track record that is. [Interruption.] Rather than chuntering, Opposition Members should be ashamed of the legacy that they have left us new Conservative Members in places like Ashfield. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) might want to concentrate on giving back the £165,000 that he stole from the miners on his own patch. He is an absolute disgrace.
What does this world-class plan mean for the people of Nottinghamshire? It means a high-speed line from the west midlands to the east midlands, providing direct high-speed rail services to Nottingham, Derby, Chesterfield, and Sheffield. Journey times from London to Nottingham will be cut by a third to just 57 minutes. Journey times from Sheffield to London will be cut by a quarter, to just 1 hour 27 minutes. Journey times from Nottingham to Birmingham will be cut by two thirds, to just 26 minutes. Even Labour in the north is backing the plan. According to the leader of Rotherham council,
“It is a victory for common sense”.
It is a pity that that lot have no common sense.
This is all good news. The Mayor of Doncaster welcomes the plan, and even the next Labour leader, the Mayor of Manchester, welcomes it. It would appear that the members of the parliamentary Labour party are out of touch with their friends in the midlands and the north, who back the IRP. It is a good job that Conservative MPs are sitting here today speaking out for the Labour voters of yesterday.

Toby Perkins: Conservative Governments have made me angry before. Indeed, it was the Thatcher Government who first awoke my passion for politics, because I wanted to stand against everything that they stood for, but at least the Thatcher Government were competent. What we have now is  a Government who are so incompetent, so inept, so irresponsible and so dishonest that they constantly let down the people who voted for them, and that is what we see in this plan for integrated rail.
We need only look at the manifesto promises that we have had from the Tory Government—all the way back to 2010, when I was first elected and the hon. Member for Ashfield was working for a Labour MP—to see what the Tories have been all about. Throughout that time, we have seen manifestos promising that HS2 would be delivered. We saw those promises in 2010 and we saw them in 2015, and the Tories were also promising to electrify the midland main line in 2017. In 2019 they promised that they would listen to the Oakervee review, a detailed review of HS2, the costs of which were escalating because of the constant delays and ineptitude of this Government in implementing it.
For 11 years HS2 has been Tory party policy, but throughout that period they have managed the policy so ineptly that the costs have continually escalated, and public confidence has not been there. Now they are asking how we can support policies that they spent four general elections and 11 years telling us were the right policies. They stand there and say that this is a major investment, but every major investment in rail that they have announced in the 11 years for which I have been here has never been delivered. They have stood there and announced midland main line electrification, and they have never delivered it. They have stood there and announced HS2, and they have never delivered it. So why on earth should anyone believe that the plan that is on that desk, which will take many years and future Parliaments to be delivered, will ever happen?
The people of Chesterfield have been lied to, and people across the midlands and the north have been lied to, in order to get this shabby Government elected. It is no wonder that people throughout my constituency are finally starting to see what this Government really stand for. It makes me sick, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Jacob Young: The Tees Valley has a proud history as the home of our nation’s railway. Starting with George Stephenson’s revolutionary launch of the Stockton to Darlington railway in 1825, our region has been a pioneer in the development of Britain’s rail sector, from steel forged in the furnaces of Redcar for the construction of the London underground to the production of new trains at Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe.
Recent announcements show our commitment to levelling up rail in Teesside. From next year, TransPennine Express services will be extended from Redcar Central to Saltburn, something I have been campaigning on for well over two years. As of next week, LNER will launch a direct service from Middlesbrough to London Kings Cross—a fantastic step, but we need more than just one a day. And the £l00 million redevelopment of Darlington train station creates new platforms, a new station building and the potential for more frequent services on the local network.
The Tees Valley is also playing a huge role in the development of the wider national network, and a key way we can strengthen this role is by committing to using British-made steel from Teesside. HS2 is one of this Government’s biggest infrastructure projects but it has yet to commit to signing the UK steel charter. It is a false economy to continue to bail out our steel industry and not secure its pipeline through procurement rules in the UK. Using UK-sourced steel in the construction of HS2 will help us to secure the future of this vital national industry and support over 1,000 jobs in Redcar alone.
This IRP delivers for the north, but there is more work to do. The Minister will know that I am pushing for the east coast main line to extend its services not just to Middlesbrough but to Redcar to complement our new freeport. Along with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I am supporting the return of passenger services to east Cleveland on the Boulby potash line, if we are able to achieve it. But as we rightly increase services on the Redcar line, such as the TransPennine service to Saltburn, we run the risk of cutting Redcar in half, virtually blockading  our level crossings in the town centre. There is no doubt that resolving this roadblock to growth in Redcar will require significant funding, and there is no obvious solution right now, but I seek assurances from the Minister that Redcar town will not be cut off as we grow our network, and that we will seek to minimise the length of time the crossings are down. This is a Government committed to levelling up and transforming Teesside for the better. Thanks to this Government and our Conservative team across our region, we have never been better connected by rail, road and air. Long may it continue.

Mohammad Yasin: Last month’s announcement that the Prime Minister would be dropping Northern Powerhouse Rail is one of the biggest broken promises to date from a Government. I stand in solidarity with my colleagues in the north and its people who are rightly outraged by this betrayal, but I watch with particular interest because my constituents in Bedford and Kempston are going through the planning stages of the East West Rail project. More must be done to ensure the public are properly consulted on rail plans, with more honesty from the outset on the pros and cons. Let us be open about the benefits, the costs and the negative impacts so that people can make informed choices, and let us have clear, fair and transparent compensation plans for the people who are impacted.
I have people in my community whose homes are under threat of compulsory purchase, but rail building plans are years away. We await the decision on whether East West Rail and the Department for Transport will accept plans for a four-track option to avoid the demolition of homes. In the meantime, people are trapped in their homes and there is no point in making home improvements or even selling if they need to. The East West Rail plans effectively have a charge on their homes, but despite that, support and advice from EWR is poor. There is no clarity about reasonable compensation, should the worst happen, and they are completely at the mercy of whatever the Government decide. It is not fair or right to treat people like this.

Tahir Ali: Does my hon. Friend agree that HS2 was supposed to be about connecting the entire country and achieving a fairer and more balanced country as a result? This disintegrated rail plan delivers the opposite by leaving much of the north with inferior rail infrastructure, and this IRP promises continued infrastructure inequality.

Mohammad Yasin: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I have lost half a minute, so I will carry on.

Nigel Evans: A minute has been added.

Mohammad Yasin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I listened carefully to the electrification plans in the integrated rail plan, and it is the third time we have been promised the electrification of the midland main line. As the electrification in other areas has been scaled back, who knows whether the plan will be followed up?
It is impossible to trust a word this Government say. They have so far refused to answer when I try to pin them down on the electrification of East West Rail. No new infrastructure plan should include the use of diesel trains if we are serious about reaching our net-zero targets. East West Rail must be electrified from day one to avoid the need for diesel locomotives and the future costs of retrofitting. Although it is important to investigate new ways to decarbonise transport, we know that existing technology such as rail electrification works now.
These rail plans that change as they go along make a mockery of the so-called integrated rail plan. It is not integrated if it rolls back previous plans. The scrapping of a major northern rail route should be the final straw for this Government, with their dead, buried and bogus levelling-up agenda.

Andy Carter: Listening to the comments of the doomsters on the Opposition Benches who seek to rubbish £96 billion-worth of investment in UK rail, I wondered whether they were reading a different document from me, but I have concluded that they have not read any documents at all.
This integrated rail plan is an absolutely brilliant plan for Warrington South. This plan puts our town and the great people of Warrington at the heart of the north’s rail network, with good connections north and south via the electrified west coast main line and a new passenger line east to west from Liverpool into Yorkshire.
I remember knocking on doors during the 2019 election, when many people said to me that the links between Liverpool and Manchester are critical for towns like Warrington in the north-west of England, and the Government have listened and responded. I thank the Rail Minister, who has worked so hard to ensure that people in my constituency get the benefits they need.
People in Warrington will see faster, more reliable connections to key cities and towns. It is reassuring to see such a strong commitment from this Government, who have listened to the views of local people, for better, faster rail services through Warrington to be delivered more quickly.
Often the biggest criticism we hear from constituents, of all Governments, is that we fail to invest in infrastructure. We need to do this to help our economy and to help local people live better, more effective lives.

Mark Eastwood: My hon. Friend mentions the importance of economic growth. Does he agree this is important for local businesses, small and medium-sized enterprises and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) said, large businesses such as British Steel?

Andy Carter: I absolutely agree. It is so much more than just infrastructure. This plan has the potential to be a social and economic catalyst for the north of England, bringing businesses, universities and employment markets closer together, changing people’s lives because they will no longer have to take a two-hour journey to Leeds. Under these plans, journey times from Warrington will be slashed to just 50 minutes. Those journey times will also be delivered 10 years faster than previously planned.
The new transport network will act as a catalyst to redevelop areas around our stations. I am looking forward to the investment I know will come to Warrington as a result of the plans for the north of England.
While the Rail Minister is on the Front Bench, I would like to raise with him the more immediate proposed changes to train timetables, which will have significant implications for services through Warrington Central station. Northern and TransPennine have been consulting on the proposed December 2022 timetables, particularly on the CLC line. The plans will see a reduction in services connecting Warrington Central to Manchester from four an hour to three an hour at peak due to the removal of one of the stopping services. Having accepted that more capacity is needed between Warrington and Manchester, Northern is actually taking away services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make sure that those timetable alterations do not impact on people in Warrington?
Finally, I want to draw briefly on the Government’s recent publication on the Union connectivity review. I am pleased that the review recognised that we need to invest more in the west coast main line north of Crewe to properly use HS2, taking advantage of the capacity and journey time benefits. More importantly—I have called for this for some time—I welcome the move to explore more alternatives to the Golborne spur, which is the link that will connect HS2 to the west coast main line. The outcome of the report was clear. There are better ways to link the west coast main line to HS2 than the Golborne spur—a connection that will cut through Warrington, cost £2 billion and deliver very few benefits.

Alex Sobel: My colleagues and I were extremely disappointed with the decision to scrap Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester. Although the IRP, or, as I like to call it, the bus replacement service, has some things to like —we will be constructive about them where they meet our aims for Yorkshire—the impact of the loss of high-speed rail will have ripple effects through every community in our region.
A lot of people do not fully realise that high-speed rail infrastructure, on dedicated lines, is not solely about getting to London or the midlands more quickly. It is about releasing capacity so that local lines can run effective local services and we can ensure the future of our network, the growth of our region and the environment around us. Northern Powerhouse Rail promised three things: faster services on a dedicated line, new trains and new stations. It promised an all-electric dedicated line between Bradford and Manchester. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) has already made the point about the short-sightedness of not connecting the people of the UK’s youngest city with the opportunities that that would have brought. Instead, the Government have written in the IRP:
“We will also upgrade and electrify”—
I just want to say that many people here do not understand what “upgrade” means. It does not mean getting something new. If I put a new stereo in my car, it is not a new car; it is just a car with a new stereo in it—
“the line between Leeds and Bradford giving a non-stop journey time which could be as low as 12 minutes.”
That sounds good at first glance, but without the dedicated line, there are knock-on effects that are not printed on the tin.
There are currently two lines that run from Leeds to Bradford. One takes 20 minutes, stopping twice, and the other takes 24 minutes, stopping four times. Both those lines are at maximum frequency. There is no way, on the current line, to meet the 12-minute target to Bradford without sacrificing local services and local stops. I have constituents living between those stops who do not feel that the cancellation of NPR affects them, but when residents who commute to Leeds or Bradford by rail find that their service will be cut to meet the Leeds-Bradford target, what will they do? The answer is probably to increase car use. We have been promised new trains, but new trains are not a replacement for new services. More than that, they will work only on electrified lines, which do not extend beyond Bradford westbound through Huddersfield or northbound to Preston.

Naseem Shah: Does my hon. Friend agree that the commute from Bradford to Leeds, or from Bradford to Manchester, puts more cars on the road and does not help us to meet our COP26 obligations?

Alex Sobel: Absolutely. Only NPR will get people on those routes on to the train.
Most concerning is the broken promise of new stations in Leeds and in Bradford. Faster and more regular services require more platform space, and Leeds is already at capacity. Without extra capacity, will my constituents who use the Harrogate line have their services cut? I would like the rail Minister to answer that question. On the electrification of the Harrogate line, the recent Network Rail transport decarbonisation network strategy includes a recommendation for electrification between Leeds and Harrogate. Will that come forward?
On Northern Powerhouse Rail, we have been sold a pup, but I also want to address the problem of getting to a train station in the first place. Otley in my constituency was cut from the train line by Beeching. Our Mayor, Tracy Brabin, has an ambitious and achievable plan for a mass transit system to reach Otley, linking it to Leeds and Bradford, where we thought it would join NPR. The Government committed to that scheme in their manifesto in 2019. The Prime Minister said in this Chamber:
“We will remedy the scandal that Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without light rail or a metro.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2019; Vol. 669, c. 47.
However, trams are built not on the hopes and dreams of a whimsical Prime Minister, but on cold, hard cash.
The Prime Minister has failed to show us the money. All the Government have committed to is £200 million, of which they have said £100 million should be used to work out how to get HS2 trains from Sheffield to Leeds—something that the DFT, not the West Yorkshire metro Mayor, should be doing—and that falls well short of the £3 billion required for us to build the tram scheme. The people of West Yorkshire have been short-changed for far too long. What the Prime Minister has offered is not levelling up, but pushing us down a hill. He is indeed northern infrastructure’s grand old duke of York, marching us up to the top of the hill and right back down again.

Robbie Moore: I always welcome the opportunity to discuss improvements to our rail system on behalf of my constituents in Keighley and Ilkley.
First, I welcome the work of this Conservative Government and previous Conservative Governments to make positive changes to rail connections and rail improvements in the north and, indeed, throughout the whole country. The Opposition gloss over the fact that in 13 years a Labour Government did absolutely nothing to improve opportunities for my constituents in Keighley to travel by rail. It is worth noting that in the Blair and Brown years, the Labour Government electrified only 63 miles. In 13 years, that is 4.8 miles a year.
Earlier, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), asked what the Conservatives have done for my constituents. Let me tell her: constituents travelling from Ilkley or Ben Rhydding, or from Steeton or Keighley, either to Bradford or to Leeds, do so on an electrified line that was put in under the Major Conservative Government in 1994. Since 2010, the Conservatives have electrified 1,500 miles of line, and here we are again, under the Johnson Conservative Government, seeing another huge boost in the shape of the £96 billion package to improve rail infrastructure across the north and throughout the rest of the country, benefiting most of my colleagues.
But that is where it stops for me. As I have said previously in the House, I feel very strongly about and am deeply disappointed by the recent rail announcements in respect of improvements for the Bradford district. In my view, the announcements completely short-change the Bradford district. The rail Minister has made several announcements about reducing the travel time between Leeds and Bradford, but the crucial thing for unlocking economic potential for Keighley and the wider Bradford district is better linkage from Bradford across to Manchester, thereby opening up better east-west links.

Naseem Shah: Does the hon. Member agree that although the Secretary of State came to the House and tried to sell us the idea that the Government will reduce the time of a journey from Leeds to Bradford from 20-something minutes to 12 minutes—or whatever it is—that journey could be done in seven minutes? The journey from Bradford to Manchester, which is currently quicker in a car so increases car usage, could be done in less than 20 minutes. The Government are wrapping up something that is actually a very hollow promise, are they not?

Robbie Moore: I was pleased to sign a joint letter to the rail Minister with the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to urge the Government to look into getting better transport connectivity between Leeds and Manchester, with a stop in Bradford, because that is the only mechanism to drive real economic prosperity and economic opportunities for my constituents in Keighley.
My constituency is only 43 miles away from Manchester. I want to make the strong case for a resident who lives in Keighley to have the opportunity to get quickly to Manchester so that they can commute there to work on a daily basis, if needs be. Likewise, that would open up  economic opportunity between Manchester and Keighley. In my view, that can be done only by having a proper stop in the Bradford district to improve connectivity.
In the short time I have remaining, I wish to make the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) has, for opening up the Skipton to Colne line. Better connectivity to east Lancashire would dramatically increase the economic opportunities for many of my constituents in Keighley and would make sure we can really drive economic prosperity in Keighley.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Before I call Grahame Morris, I must say that I understand that during your contribution, Mr Anderson, you referred to another Member stealing, which is clearly unacceptable language. Will you please withdraw that?

Lee Anderson: Yes, the debate with the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) did get a little bit heated.  I apologise if I called him a thief but, just for the record, I am not a scab.

Nigel Evans: I did not hear the word scab being used; had I done so, I would have called that Member up as well. In the memory of Jo Cox, we really do have to have a far better atmosphere in this Chamber. I hope we can now start to move on with that.

Grahame Morris: I rise in support of the motion in the name of Her Majesty’s Opposition.
My constituency has minimal rail infrastructure. The reopening of Horden train station was a cause for celebration. It promised new opportunities for employment, education and leisure through making the major towns and cities in the north-east more accessible to people living in my constituency in east Durham.
We do not enjoy the embarrassment of riches in public transport that we see in London and, apparently, in some other constituencies, where missing a tube or a bus is not a major issue, with another service arriving just minutes later.
Seaham and Horden in my constituency are served by one train an hour, normally consisting of two carriages. For my constituents who are seeking to attend a hospital appointment, a university or college class, getting to work, or simply meeting friends, the reliability of the train has a considerable impact on employment prospects or educational success. To increase capacity and frequency, we are not talking about multi-billion pound schemes. If there were any truth in the levelling-up rhetoric, I would not be on my feet here tonight, pressing the Government for additional transport options, more resources and more frequent services.
I want to highlight a particular case for the Minister, who is a good man, about what the consequences are when we have severe overcrowding, I will, if I may, read out a letter that I have received, relaying the experience of a constituent. It is from the mother of Harry, an 11-year-old boy. This is what she said:
“Harry, 11, was standing squashed with his Dad. He started to go pale and felt sick. He then suddenly collapsed, went limp, eyes rolled back and he passed out. We pulled the emergency stop button. After about a minute, he came round, but was weak, limp and only just responding. There was no space for him to lie down”—
the train was so crammed—
“no space for me to even get to him. No space for the conductor to get to him to see if he needed medical help. The windows were closed. It was hot, airless, and people were packed to absolute capacity. What does it take for the train companies to understand that packing trains full to above safe capacity is a fatality waiting to happen. The conductors were encouraging people to get on an already dangerously full train.”
I invite the Minister to understand our experience in east Durham with these overcrowded crushes, which are a clear risk to health and safety.

Nigel Evans: We will move on to the wind-ups now, but Rachael Maskell would have been next. Tan, you can have a bit more time, but would you allow her to intervene on you? I know that this is an unusual request, but I hope that you will think kindly of her when she decides to intervene.

Tan Dhesi: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, of course, how could I not agree to your demand? If I want to speak in future debates, I cannot but obey your request as a command.
It is an absolute honour, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, to respond to this debate on rail investment and Government betrayals. Indeed, from the moment I became a shadow Minister for railways, I have been waiting patiently—impatiently, in fact—like an overly keen train spotter, for the integrated rail plan, but what a complete let-down. For well over a year, I have received so many assurances that it would be published soon, very soon, that I had taken to calling it the mythical rail plan, but perhaps the Minister was simply too busy picking his secret Santa gift for the Downing Street party to finish it in time last year. Perhaps I can recommend that his secret Santa splashes out on a dictionary for him this year, because there are a few words around this rail plan that Ministers may wish to look at. “Soon” is certainly one of them, but “promise”, “commitment” and “betrayal” are a few other words that come to mind, having now seen the Government’s disintegrated rail plan, as so eloquently highlighted by so many hon. Members.
I thank the many right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed today, and who share the passion that is so clearly felt by their constituents and many others across our country regarding the Government’s abysmal plans for our rail network. They have spoken so eloquently and powerfully—none more so than my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who gave a detailed exposé of the Government’s betrayal. Hon. Members’ comments about disappointment in the lack of Government ambition are echoed by many of those affected.

Jacob Young: Will the hon. Member give way?

Rachel Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tan Dhesi: The hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) has made many interventions and has spoken. As directed by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am looking to take interventions, within the limited time, from those individuals who have not yet spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins).

Rachel Hopkins: My hon. Friend is talking passionately about our constituents’ enthusiasm for investment in rail. Does he agree that rail investment needs to be integrated through rail and infrastructure, so that stations that are decrepit, such as Luton station, get the investment they need so that they can be rebuilt to be fit for the 21st century?

Tan Dhesi: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and is a passionate exponent of what is required for her constituency. Indeed, other hon. Members have highlighted the dilapidated state of many stations and other infrastructure.
Given that the Secretary of State is keen on quotes from northern leaders and industry experts, I thought I would share some so that he and the Minister can become familiar with theirs views and are left in no doubt. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers noted that the Government’s decisions are
“driving decline in our railways”.
The Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association and Unite unions were of a similar view, given the huge loss of well-paid, unionised jobs, and the loss of skills and apprenticeships thereafter.
The metro Mayor of Liverpool, Steve Rotheram, whom the Secretary of State quoted, said that the Government are just offering “scraps off the table”. ASLEF aptly described the plans as “levelling down”. Transport for the North called them “woefully inadequate”. The Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, who has been quoted by Government Members on many occasions, observed that instead of NPR, the north just got PR. The Northern Powerhouse Partnership, headed up by the Government’s old friend, the former Chancellor, George Osborne, said that these plans disappointed “virtually everybody”.
When six major newspapers in the north of England all united to run the same powerful front page, calling on the Government simply to deliver what they promised on rail—nothing more, nothing less; just what they promised—it should have been a wake-up call to Ministers that they cannot substitute proper investment with the usual Government spin, so why did the Department so blatantly ignore those who actually live, work and travel in the north and midlands when pulling these proposals together? Were the years spent compiling this and other reports not enough to meet stakeholders and listen to their suggestions, or did Ministers simply ignore them?
The scale of the Government’s under-delivery on promises would be surprising if we had not been paying close attention to their past record. Just last year, the Minister noted:
“The Government recognise the importance of improving rail connectivity to Bradford—for the local community, for passengers and for the regeneration opportunities that it could bring.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 72WH.]
Yet, when it comes to actioning this plan, Bradford has been left high and dry—as has been eloquently highlighted by Members from Bradford and Yorkshire, and indeed by the West Yorkshire Mayor, the wonderful Tracy Brabin —with no new high-speed connection between Bradford and Leeds and no new station, despite it being a city that houses more than half a million people. It has the UK’s worst rail connections for a city of such stature.
And then there is the eastern leg of HS2 to Leeds. I have simply lost count of the number of times the Government have assured the House, myself—for over a year, from that Dispatch Box—and the public that this will go ahead “in full”. I am therefore sure that the people of Chesterfield, Sheffield and Leeds were surprised, to put it mildly, to find out that they would no longer be connected by HS2. Northern Powerhouse Rail may as well have been cancelled under Government plans, with a half-baked version delivering only for a select few going ahead, despite being promised over 60 times by the Government. Why would the British people believe a single word that this Government say?
In February 2020 the Prime Minister told the House, with regard to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, that
“both are needed and both will be built as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 713.]
So why has he gone back on his word once again? By which date—perhaps the Minister could answer this—had the Government decided to betray the investment promises that they made? Was it before the IRP was published recently, or was it while they were still making commitments to this House that plans would be delivered in full? Did they ever intend to keep their word? We cannot continue to fail rail passengers due to Government incompetence. Under-delivering on our rail network will have consequences for decades to come. Transport has lasting consequences for the way that people live their lives—the types of jobs that they are able to do, the holidays that they take, and the areas that they choose to live in. Breaking promises on such fundamental parts of our society is truly unforgivable.
This Government have become famous for their U-turns, so I ask the Minister: will the Government U-turn one more time to benefit our northern towns and cities? Will he take the opportunity today to reverse his decision to scale back plans for the north and instead keep the commitments that the Government have regularly promised? Labour Members know that breaking promises on such fundamental issues, especially to communities crying out for proper investment, is unforgivable. Will he do the right thing today, because people will not settle for crumbs? They deserve the full deal.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank everybody who has spoken for their important contributions to this debate. As a northern MP myself, I know this is an issue of huge importance to all our local communities.
Despite the protestations of Labour Members, I know that our constituents will not mind which technical scheme we have gone for; what they will care about is the outcomes when those schemes are delivered: the faster and more reliable services that they will get; the ease and convenience with which they will be able to move not just up and down this country but across it; and crucially, the speed with which these investments will be delivered—not decades in the future but getting started on that work right now, this very month. I understand that there are enormously strong feelings about rail investment across the country, and it is important  that we ensure that all areas get a fair deal that enables them to grow their local economies and support employment opportunities. That has been demonstrated in both the response to the integrated rail plan and throughout this debate. Let me therefore address a number of the points that were made.
The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), lamented that the integrated rail plan lacked ambition and talked about what was going on in Denmark. I remind him that under our plans HS2 will remain the largest infrastructure project in Europe, with over 20,000 people already employed, increasing to 34,000 people at peak construction. Our plans will reduce the current journey time from Glasgow to London by 49 minutes, and from Edinburgh to London by 42 minutes. These plans are good for Scotland and good for the Union.

Jacob Young: This is the largest infrastructure project in Europe, so would it not be great if it was using British steel?

Andrew Stephenson: My hon. Friend tempts me. As he knows, HS2 has already awarded work to 2,200 businesses across the United Kingdom, 97% of which are British-registered firms. There are many people already supplying British steel but I am keen for us to do even more and support even more businesses in Redcar.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), both distinguished former rail Ministers, welcomed the plans and set out how they build on the £29 billion already invested in transport across the north since 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough reminded us of the £360 million to introduce contactless tap in, tap out ticketing to hundreds more stations outside London and the south-east, which will bring huge benefits to travellers across the north.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) talked about the impact on Liverpool city region and asked if I would meet the Mayor, Steve Rotheram. I am happy to commit to continuing to work with the Mayor and local stakeholders, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under these plans, the journey time from Manchester to Liverpool will fall from 50 minutes to 35 minutes and we will see the number of trains doubled.

Rachael Maskell: The Minister will know that York is a formidable rail city, bursting with expert planners and engineers. They were astounded by the rail plan, not least because it is about economic development in Yorkshire and the north-east, as well as the rest of the north. Will he therefore go back and rethink that plan so that the north-east and Yorkshire can see the benefits that elsewhere in the country gets? Ultimately, the expertise needs to be put back on the rail lines, which our city can offer.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the hon. Lady for her point. We have met in her constituency to discuss various proposals, and she knows that the east coast main line upgrade will benefit York. The core Northern Powerhouse network being built from York all the way to Liverpool will benefit her constituents, so I believe that this plan has significant benefits for her constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) highlighted the significant benefits to Dewsbury, Mirfield and Huddersfield, which are well beyond anything proposed under the previous plans, including electrification and major station improvements. I look forward to visiting his constituency soon.

Jason McCartney: The Minister has just mentioned my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. Continuing on from Dewsbury and Huddersfield, there is huge investment going into stations in Slaithwaite and Marsden and into better connectivity and improving accessibility for those with disabilities.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. As he recognises, these plans deliver far more for towns on the existing railway line than was ever previously proposed, and therefore he will see significant investment in all the stations on his line.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) reminded us of some of the benefits of HS2 to Wales, with passengers from south Wales able to access HS2 services via Birmingham Curzon Street and passengers from north Wales becoming within two hours 15 minutes of London. As he knows, the current control period, control period 6, has seen a record £2 billion revenue settlement for Network Rail in Wales.
The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) called for more electrification. I agree with her. That is why I am proud that since 2010 we have electrified 1,221 miles of track, compared with just 63 miles under the 13 years of the last Labour Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) welcomed the investment in Golborne station and the Castlefield corridor improvements, while also again putting on record the concerns of his constituents about the Golborne spur. Thanks to my hon. Friend’s campaigning, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), those concerns have been heard loud and clear, and they know we are currently reflecting on alternatives.
The hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) complained about the plans, even though for his constituency the current plans are pretty much the same as the previous plans. We will get on with our plans to deliver HS2 all the way into Manchester, reducing journey times from Preston to London from 128 minutes down to 78 minutes once HS2 is operational.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) has been a tireless champion of his constituents, and I am pleased to have visited Toton with him.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the importance of rail investment to the UK economy and, in particular, the delivery of new lines linking Yorkshire, the North West, North East and Midlands; regrets the Government’s decision not to deliver new high speed investment, Northern Powerhouse Rail in full, and electrification covering communities across the North and Midlands; calls on the Government to deliver the new northern rail investment promised by the Prime Minister in full; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to update the House in person before January 2022 on his Department’s benefit cost ratio analysis for the revised HS2 line.

Debbie Abrahams: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been contacted by a constituent who has incurable secondary breast cancer. She has planned a Christmas holiday to Spain with her family, including her 12-year-old and 15-year-old children. The UK Government recommend a single dose of vaccine for over-15s which her daughter has had, but the Spanish Government are now saying that over-12s are to have two doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of a one-dose vaccine. My constituent is very concerned that her daughter could be prevented from entering Spain and joining them on their holiday. She is desperately seeking clarification on this matter, as it is not on the Government website or indeed that of the airline, and they are due to travel next Thursday. Given this, I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how to get a full response from the Foreign Office on what she can expect and how she can ensure her family can make travel plans before Christmas.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of the point of order on behalf of her constituents. It is important that Ministers give timely answers to Members, particularly when they raise issues of an urgent nature. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point raised and I hope they will relay it back, but there will be other opportunities, including business questions tomorrow.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)

That the draft Solvency 2 (Group Supervision) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 15 November, be approved.—(Steve Double.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - South Warwickshire Mega-Council

Matt Western: I want to bring to the attention of the House the issue of the merging of local councils without due regard to the wishes of local residents. This issue is directly linked to proposals in my constituency along with many others to merge Warwick District Council with Stratford-on-Avon District Council. This petition complements that to Warwick District Council which has 1,050 signatures demanding that it establishes a citizens assembly to examine governance options before holding a referendum.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make it a requirement for a range of options to be put to local residents in the form of a referendum in the event that local councillors propose any changes to local governing structures.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the proposal to merge Warwick and Stratford district councils will dilute local power; further that, if the proposal is approved, the number of councillors serving residents in south Warwickshire would be reduced from 80 to 60; further that residents need to feel more connected and less detached from political decision-making, and that could only be achieved if councils are more in touch with residents; further that Warwick District Council was prepared to stage a referendum to decide whether to adopt a climate change levy in Spring 2020 and so is open to referendums in theory; and further that before any decision is made, a citizens assembly should be set up to outline arguments for and against the merger and that this should be followed by a referendum on the final verdict.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to make it a requirement for a range of options to be put to local residents in the form of a referendum in the event that local councillors propose any changes to local governing structures.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002702]

Petition - Death by dangerous driving

8.43 pm

Liam Byrne: On  29 August, Ghulam Nabi was walking to his job as a bus driver so as to donate his Sunday earnings—he worked on Sundays—to charity. Suddenly over a bridge sped a driver, Mr Raihan Ahmed, driving so fast that all the wheels of his vehicle were off the road. He hit Mr Nabi and killed him. Mr Ahmed was driving a stolen vehicle, without a licence and without insurance, yet was sentenced to just a couple of years. This is not justice. Some 1,300 people have signed a petition in similar terms tabled by my colleague, Councillor Majid Mahmood of Birmingham City Council.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to request that the Attorney General refer the unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Raihan Ahmed caused death by dangerous driving, drove without a licence or insurance and failed to stop at the scene of the crime; notes that the actions of Raihan Ahmed led to the loss of Ghulam Nabi’s life; further that under his current sentence Ahmed could be out on the street in under two years whilst the family and community grieve for the rest of their lives; declares that a longer sentence will act as a greater deterrent to others.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to request that the Attorney General refer the unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal.]
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002703]

Dignity in Dying

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

Andrew Mitchell: I express my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate.
Assisted dying is an immensely sensitive and emotive issue of conscience over which each of us individually, as Members of this place, must wrestle, and which this House will have to address collectively before much longer. In my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for choice at the end of life—I have the pleasure of co-chairing it with the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) in this House—I have had discussions with many colleagues, including the Prime Minister, and I know how seriously this issue is taken. I know that many colleagues are yet to come to a firm conclusion on it. I respect that position. I respect it not least because I have completely changed my mind on this issue since I arrived in the House of Commons. After listening to many constituents in my office in Sutton Coldfield, often with tears of solidarity in my eyes, as with inordinate sadness they have told me of the painful and undignified death of someone they loved, I have concluded that I want the law changed to benefit my constituents, to benefit those who I love, and possibly, indeed, to benefit myself.
Our constituents are, according to every single opinion poll over the past three decades, in strong support of this change in the law. I remind the House that the Bill introduced by the noble Lady Meacher in the other place, which has recently commanded their lordships’ support and builds on the consensus so painstakingly and skilfully assembled over many years by Lord Falconer, sets out that those who are within six months of the end of their life and who, in the opinion of two doctors and a High Court judge, have reached the decision independently and in sound mind that they wish to end their life to avoid the often undignified and extraordinary suffering that would otherwise assail them, should be able to do so.

Fiona Bruce: Is it not extremely difficult to assess when a life will end? Is that not one of the challenges that we have with regard to this proposal of a timed end to a life?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right, but I used to be a junior social security Minister, and I know that social security law means that the Government—society—already have a way of determining a period six months before the end of someone’s life. We can of course reflect on this, and on whether there is a better way of doing it, but that facility in fact already exists.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: How would my right hon. Friend’s Bill prevent relatives or others from putting pressure on the person to ask for this procedure to be put in place?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I will come directly to that.
My aim in this debate is not to persuade all colleagues of the rightness of this cause but to make two clear points: first, that this is a debate about the real-life  consequences of our blanket ban on assisted dying; and secondly, that there are real examples from overseas of how it can be done better.
In the past several days, we have seen the rules on international travel tighten once again; in the space of a week, the Swiss Government closed their borders to travellers from the UK unless they undertook a quarantine of 10 days, before changing the rules back a few days later. The dismay that that has caused people seeking an assisted death in Switzerland is overwhelming, with their having to spend their final days confined to a hotel room, scrambling to update plans when time and energy are in such short supply, and unable to have all—or perhaps any—of their loved ones there to accompany them. The already cruel situation where British citizens can have the death they want only if they travel to another country becomes yet more unacceptable when even that most exceptional option can be withdrawn with such short notice. That is not to blame Switzerland; it is the fault of our own failure as a country to provide that option at home, preferring to outsource our compassion to another country.
Last year, I raised the question of travel during the pandemic with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. He confirmed that the ban on travelling overseas did not apply to those travelling for an assisted death in another country. That announcement was a welcome relief to many, although it once again highlights our heavy reliance on other jurisdictions to provide our own citizens with the deaths that they want.

Christine Jardine: rose—

Andrew Mitchell: I will get a little further with my case, and then I will certainly give way.
Furthermore, this leniency does nothing for those who cannot afford a trip to Switzerland; who cannot access the necessary medical records; who cannot travel due to illness or disability; or who cannot access the services of Dignitas for a host of other reasons. It forces all those who accompany the dying person to break the law and run the risk of prosecution on their return to this country.
I am saddened to tell the House that David Peace has today died at Dignitas; it is a coincidence that he happened to die today. Many colleagues may have seen a touching interview with David over the summer, in which he spoke about his desire to control his death, rather than let motor neurone disease choose his death for him. Earlier this week, before he left this country—his home—for Switzerland, David said:
“I have terminal motor neurone disease, a fatal illness for which there is no treatment or cure. It has robbed me of my ability to speak, swallow, balance and walk. It is rampaging through my body, paralysing my muscles. Nothing will stop it. Palliative care cannot give me the death I want, I simply want the right to die on my own terms...My only option has been to plan an assisted death at Dignitas in Switzerland, which I have done in meticulous detail over the past few months. Though stressful and hugely expensive, this has given me comfort and peace of mind. Covid-19 measures have been a real concern throughout this year, knowing that travel restrictions or lockdowns could jeopardise my plans”.
He continued:
“The emotional and logistical nightmare I have endured over the past few days would have been avoided entirely under the Assisted Dying Bill, which would have enabled me to go peacefully and with dignity in my own home at a time of my choosing.”
David’s call is echoed by another proud Englishmen, Ray Illingworth, the legendary English and Yorkshire cricketer, who was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer a year ago. He said this of having to go abroad to obtain an assisted death:
“If that was the only option I would, but we shouldn’t have to do that. I’d like to be put to sleep in peace in my own home in Yorkshire.”
Ray has represented his country, and is now asking his country to help him have the choice of dying on his own terms.
Those who cannot travel to Switzerland have only a few agonising choices here at home. For many, our world-leading palliative and end-of-life care will ensure a peaceful and dignified death, but even with the very best care, 17 people a day will die in excruciating pain, to say nothing of those who die with uncontrollable symptoms, or without dignity in their final days. For those who wish to hasten their death, the option remains open of withdrawing from life-sustaining treatment, or voluntarily stopping eating and drinking with the intention of hastening death; but there is no option to take direct steps to end one’s own life with medical support.
Perhaps most tragic are the cases in which dying people, trapped in pain and despair, decide to end their life by suicide. The best estimates are that hundreds of suicides every year are of people living with a terminal illness. I know from speaking to people who have direct experience of losing their loved one to suicide that these dreadful decisions are taken not lightly, but as a last, desperate choice, due to the lack of a safeguarded assisted dying option.
We must be honest about recognising the victims of our laws—the dozens of our citizens who feel they must travel overseas to achieve the death that is right for them; the hundreds of terminally ill people who die by their own hand; and the thousands of people who die beyond the reach of the very best end-of-life care we can offer. Every year, we condemn too many people to becoming casualties of a law that lacks compassion and public support, and belongs to a bygone age.

Danny Kruger: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as expected. He refers to a very small number of people to whom he wants to give this new right. I recognise the extraordinary pain and distress of those individuals and their families, but is he aware that in Oregon—the legislation being proposed in the other place is based on the law there—over half the people who apply for assisted death do so not because of terrible pain and suffering, but because they do not want to be a burden on their family? That is the consideration that motivates them. Does he not agree that that is likely to be replicated here, given the sad prevalence of abuse and neglect of elderly relatives in our country?
Surely the answer to the distress of people facing death is to improve palliative care, which, as he says, though it can be excellent in this country, is tragically patchy, which is not good enough. Surely we should invest significantly in palliative care to ensure that everyone in this country has the opportunity to die with all the care that they need, and does not have a terrible, distressing death, before we ever consider this terrible step of allowing assisted suicide.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend and I will no doubt continue this argument for many months. He and I are as one on the importance of improving palliative care, but alas, there are those who will never benefit from those improvements because of the nature of their illness. I will come to Oregon in a moment, but to address the very point that he made, we emphasise the importance of a High Court judge being involved.
What can we learn from overseas, as others like us struggle with this issue? We know that this can all be done better. Indeed, with each year that passes, yet another jurisdiction takes a step forward to provide choice at the end of life for its citizens. Eleven states in the USA and five Australian states have legalised assisted dying, with New South Wales likely to follow suit very shortly. New Zealand permits assisted dying, following a nationwide referendum that found an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders supported a change in the law. In Europe too, in the past couple of years, laws have been passed by the Spanish and Portuguese Parliaments, and court judgments have overturned the bans on assisted dying in Germany and Austria.
In places such as Oregon, which my hon. Friend mentioned, assisted dying has been legal for a quarter of a century, and the eligibility criteria and processes remain essentially the same as the day they were introduced. Of the jurisdictions that have introduced assisted dying solely for people who are terminally ill and mentally competent, not a single one has subsequently extended its laws beyond that point.
The other important point is the direction of travel in this area: we are told by those who oppose law change that other countries provide clear warnings of the horrors that would befall the elderly, the vulnerable and others in society if we were to legalise assisted dying. Not only is there no evidence to that effect, but no single jurisdiction has legalised assisted dying and then subsequently repealed that law. Do we as a House consider ourselves to be more blessed with wisdom and foresight than the parliamentarians of all of these other jurisdictions or think that they have simply turned a blind eye to those concerns? The truth, of course, is that these fears, as seriously as we take them, simply have not come to fruition.
Very close to our shores, change is on its way. Two weeks ago, the States Assembly of Jersey voted by a large margin of 36 votes to 10 in support of a proposition on assisted dying, with draft legislation to be introduced by 2023. A widely signed petition led to the establishment of a citizens’ jury of islanders, which found that more than 75% of participants wanted to legalise assisted dying.
Ireland’s Parliament has given its support in principle to assisted dying in October 2020 and a new special committee has been established to begin working on legislation that will command the support of their MPs. That work will commence early next year and demonstrates the renewed commitment of the Irish Parliament to progressive causes.
Perhaps most important is the proposed legislation in the Scottish Parliament, introduced by the long-serving and well respected Liam McArthur MSP. Indications are that the resulting legislation is likely to secure the support of MSPs, as long as it is tightly drafted and contains robust safeguards. Scotland would become the first constituent nation of the United Kingdom to legislate on assisted dying and, inevitably, that may shine a light on our successive failures to progress law changes here in Westminster.

Christine Jardine: The right hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech on a highly emotive issue. He mentioned Liam McArthur’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which was the subject of consultation, and there is movement in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the reticence of some Members or their reluctance still to make their minds up. Does he share my hope that they will take confidence from what is happening in the Scottish Parliament and the support among the public to have the courage of their convictions, if and when legislation comes before this place?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention. It must be the case, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) will agree, that all Members of Parliament will be following what happens in Scotland with the greatest possible care. It is an issue that, wherever we stand on the debate, greatly exercises Members of the House of Commons.
I wish to draw colleagues’ attention to the process envisaged by the Scottish Parliament for a debate on this issue. A proposal has been lodged in the Parliament and the initial consultation will close in two weeks’ time. In the new year there will be an analysis of the responses to the consultation, which will feed into the drafting of the Bill. Once drafted, the Bill will be examined in detail by Select Committees, calling for evidence from stakeholders across society. Only once that pre-legislative scrutiny has been completed will the legislation be debated on the floor of their Parliament.
Here in this House we lack anything like such a comprehensive system. Our system for considering private Members’ legislation is entirely inadequate when debating such an important issue. The Government have rightly determined that it should be neutral on the principle of assisted dying, but I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that neutrality on the legislative process, rather than on the principle, has the effect of siding with the status quo. A refusal to facilitate the debate is a de facto opposition to law change.
Finally, I will ask the Minister some questions about specifics of how the laws in neighbouring jurisdictions would work together. As she will no doubt be aware, the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other healthcare regulators operate on a UK-wide basis. Can she confirm that if either Jersey or Scotland were to legalise assisted dying, any health and care professional who participated in and followed the requirements of that law would not face prosecution?
The Minister may also be aware that the issue of conscientious objection has previously been treated as a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament. It should be common ground that, whatever our view on assisted dying, health and care professionals should not have to actively participate in the practice if they believe it contravenes their conscience and beliefs. I understand that the Government’s position is that conscientious objection is in fact already within the competence of the Scottish Parliament: can she confirm to the House that that is the case, and to what extent any legislation on conscientious objection in the Scottish Parliament would contravene the devolution settlement or require the approval of the UK Government?
Finally, I ask the Minister to update the House on the work commissioned by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk  (Matt Hancock), to be undertaken by the Office of National Statistics on the number of terminally ill people who end their own lives by suicide. All of us in this House wish to tackle and reduce the number of suicides, attempted suicides and incidents of self-harm, but in order to do that, it is imperative to understand why many people take that most desperate decision.

Rachel Hopkins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As a fellow member of the all-party parliamentary group on choice at the end of life, is this not fundamentally about enabling everyone to have a good death—be it through palliative care, if that is their wish, or the choice of an assisted death? It is a matter of choice at the end of life. Does he agree?

Andrew Mitchell: I very much agree with what the hon. Lady says. She has thought about this very carefully. We all want to see choice extended wherever possible in our daily lives, and she is right in what she says.
Many colleagues and former colleagues, including Lord Field of Birkenhead, have changed their mind on assisted dying, whether informed by their constituents or by their personal experience. This House is in a very different place from when this issue was last voted on, more than six years ago. I am afraid that we as a House will continue to find ourselves running to catch up with the public view on this unless a serious process for consideration of this issue is put in place.

Gillian Keegan: I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for securing a debate on this issue and for not only outlining his views on assisted dying, but taking many interventions on both sides of the debate.
It remains the Government’s view that any change to the law in this sensitive area is a matter for Parliament to decide and an issue of conscience for individual parliamentarians, rather than one for Government policy. I have the utmost sympathy for all those who have suffered the pain of watching a loved one battle a life-threatening or degenerative condition; many of us will have witnessed that, and it will inform our decisions.
As my right hon. Friend mentions, in order to develop more precise estimates of suicide risk for people with specific debilitating and terminal illnesses, the Office for National Statistics is consulting with clinical experts and is due to publish its report next year. We will consider its findings carefully.
We know that this issue is also being considered across the wider UK family, with—as my right hon. Friend mentioned—an ongoing consultation with the Scottish Parliament and legislation being drafted by Jersey’s Council of Ministers. We will await further details of any proposals that may be presented, at which point we will be able to say more about how medical professionals can work within the different countries. The Government are, however, committed to ensuring that patients of all ages are treated with dignity at the end of life, and have the opportunity to benefit from high-quality personalised care that takes account of their wishes.
The NHS constitution states our commitment to putting respect, dignity, compassion and care at the core of the way in which patients are treated. Dignity means different things to different people, but as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman pointed out in a 2014 report, there are some key actions to ensure that people have dignity at the end of life They include allowing patient choice through appropriate care planning and promoting good and timely communication, with patients and their families and between the people and organisations supporting them.
We have seen many changes in the health system over the last decade, including an ambition to move more care out of acute, in-patient settings and make it available to people at—or closer to—home. The place where care is provided is particularly important for people at the end of life, and palliative and end-of-life care services have adapted to allow patient choice wherever possible.
We know that the covid-19 pandemic brought new challenges, with a sudden and significant increase in both the number of deaths overall and the proportion of people who passed away at home, but despite those challenging circumstances, our dedicated and exceptional palliative and end-of-life care workforce demonstrated their pragmatism and resilience and continued to provide world-class care for patients around the clock, working hard to adapt to meet the needs of patients and their families and ensure that dignity was maintained. We are immensely grateful to them. They have truly gone above and beyond throughout the covid response, and they deserve our unwavering support and recognition.
However, despite the efforts of our health and care colleagues across the system, before and during the pandemic, we know there is still more that we can do. Improving quality of care requires a confident workforce with the knowledge, skills and capability to deliver high-quality palliative and end-of-life care. Health Education England continues to provide comprehensive training for all health and care staff involved in palliative and end-of-life care through the availability of resources from the End-of-life care programme.
Furthermore, NHS England and NHS Improvement have committed themselves to supporting the transformation of palliative and end-of-life care services, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). They have developed a three-year strategic delivery plan, aligned with the long-term plan, which prioritises the importance of improving access, quality and sustainability. They are committed to providing  dignified, personalised care for people at the end of their lives, including opportunities for shared decision-making conversations about their treatment and support. Those conversations between healthcare professionals and patients ensure that patients’ preferences and needs are taken into account when their care is being planned.
NHS England and NHS Improvement will be publishing advance care planning principles in early 2022. They will focus on the importance of providing opportunities for a person and his or her family or carers to engage in meaningful discussions, led by the person concerned, which consider that person’s priorities and preferences when he or she is nearing the end of life. The Health and Care Bill presents a fantastic opportunity to strengthen the existing partnerships across the health and care system and continue the excellent work that non-statutory integrated care systems have started.
NHS England and NHS Improvement are already supporting commissioners through their strategic clinical networks. These networks are using integrated whole-system collaborative approaches to continue to drive improvements in outcomes for patients at the end of life, including through encouraging innovation and sharing best practice. One example is the work of the north-west palliative and end-of-life care strategic clinical network, which is focused on delivering activities to promote equity and reduce health inequalities in palliative and end-of-life care across the region.
If passed, the legislation will increase integration between health and social care further by removing barriers to data sharing and enabling joint decision making and collaborative practice. As a Government, we value collaboration at all levels, and just this morning I met colleagues from Marie Curie to discuss services for people at the end of their life. I am keen to continue to work with our passionate and dedicated stakeholders to further consider the opportunities for embedding best practice at local and national level, and to ensure that there is no postcode lottery or patchy services. Building on the great work that is already happening and looking to the future, we know that demand for palliative and end-of-life care services has increased and will continue to do so as our population ages. The Government will continue in their commitment to enable high quality personalised palliative and end-of-life care, and we are committed to ensuring dignity and choice for all, even at the most difficult of times.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.